From: Mark Mitchell <mark@codesourcery.com>
To: Richard Guenther <richard.guenther@gmail.com>
Cc: trevor_smigiel@playstation.sony.com,
Hans-Peter Nilsson <hp@bitrange.com>, gcc <gcc@gcc.gnu.org>,
Russell_Olsen@playstation.sony.com,
Andrew_Pinski@playstation.sony.com,
Mark Mendell <mendell@ca.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: __builtin_expect for indirect function calls
Date: Sun, 06 Jan 2008 19:44:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <47812F74.3020905@codesourcery.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <84fc9c000801050240l6918b59dpd519dea81ddd3ad@mail.gmail.com>
Richard Guenther wrote:
>> What do people think? Do we have the leeway to change this? Or should
>> we add __builtin_expect2? Or add an -fno-polymorphic-builtin-expect?
>> Or...?
>
> I think we should simply make __builtin_expect polymorphic, but make sure
> to promote integral arguments with rank less than long to long.
I thought of that, but I hadn't suggested this idea because it seemed so
weird. Promoting to int would not be odd, but promoting to long is
weird. Anyhow, you're right; that's another option, and, despite
weirdness, plausible. I can't think of a way in which it changes
current behavior, unless you call __builtin_expect with a long long, and
that's probably not going to do what you expect right now anyhow.
--
Mark Mitchell
CodeSourcery
mark@codesourcery.com
(650) 331-3385 x713
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2008-01-06 19:44 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2007-12-18 0:52 trevor_smigiel
2007-12-18 2:27 ` Jonathan Adamczewski
2007-12-22 3:42 ` Hans-Peter Nilsson
2007-12-26 19:10 ` Mark Mitchell
2008-01-03 23:36 ` trevor_smigiel
2008-01-05 5:44 ` Mark Mitchell
2008-01-05 10:40 ` Richard Guenther
2008-01-06 19:44 ` Mark Mitchell [this message]
2008-01-07 21:15 ` Mark Mendell
2008-01-08 15:36 ` Dave Korn
2008-01-08 15:51 ` Dave Korn
2008-01-03 23:46 ` trevor_smigiel
2008-01-06 20:42 Ross Ridge
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=47812F74.3020905@codesourcery.com \
--to=mark@codesourcery.com \
--cc=Andrew_Pinski@playstation.sony.com \
--cc=Russell_Olsen@playstation.sony.com \
--cc=gcc@gcc.gnu.org \
--cc=hp@bitrange.com \
--cc=mendell@ca.ibm.com \
--cc=richard.guenther@gmail.com \
--cc=trevor_smigiel@playstation.sony.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).