From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-return-143325-listarch-gcc=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 30709 invoked by alias); 5 Jan 2008 10:40:49 -0000
Received: (qmail 30699 invoked by uid 22791); 5 Jan 2008 10:40:48 -0000
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from fg-out-1718.google.com (HELO fg-out-1718.google.com) (72.14.220.152)     by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Sat, 05 Jan 2008 10:40:30 +0000
Received: by fg-out-1718.google.com with SMTP id d23so3584156fga.28         for <gcc@gcc.gnu.org>; Sat, 05 Jan 2008 02:40:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.82.138.6 with SMTP id l6mr31457861bud.13.1199529628181;         Sat, 05 Jan 2008 02:40:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.82.145.6 with HTTP; Sat, 5 Jan 2008 02:40:28 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <84fc9c000801050240l6918b59dpd519dea81ddd3ad@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 05 Jan 2008 10:40:00 -0000
From: "Richard Guenther" <richard.guenther@gmail.com>
To: "Mark Mitchell" <mark@codesourcery.com>
Subject: Re: __builtin_expect for indirect function calls
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>
In-Reply-To: <477F190B.2000807@codesourcery.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <20071218000552.GV3656@playstation.sony.com> 	 <20071221220630.Y67443@dair.pair.com> 	 <4772A350.6030907@codesourcery.com> 	 <20080103233308.GD5853@playstation.sony.com> 	 <477F190B.2000807@codesourcery.com>
X-IsSubscribed: yes
Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gcc.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/>
Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org
X-SW-Source: 2008-01/txt/msg00041.txt.bz2

On Jan 5, 2008 6:43 AM, Mark Mitchell <mark@codesourcery.com> wrote:
> trevor_smigiel@playstation.sony.com wrote:
>
> > Currently, the prototype for __builtin_expect is
> >
> >     long __builtin_expect (long expression, long constant);
> >
> > Extending it to functions would change it to
> >
> >     T __builtin_expect (T expression, T expected);
>
> Yes, it really makes more sense for __builtin_expect to be polymorphic
> in this way anyhow.  I consider it a design wart that it's defined in
> terms of "long".  (For example, this means you can't use it for "long
> long"!)
>
> > Rather than the above definition, we could choose not to inspect the
> > context and just say:
> >     * T is the type of 'expression'
> >     * 'expected' is allowed to be a non-constant
> >
> > In this case I think there would only be compatibility issues with
> > unusual uses of __builtin_expect, for example, if it was being used in a
> > function argument and its type effected overload resolution.
>
> I think this is the abstractly right approach.  However, you're right
> that there are backwards-compatibility issues.  Another issue is that on
> platforms where "long" and "int" do not have the same width, something like:
>
>   sizeof(__builtin_expect(1, 1))
>
> will change its value.  And, the current prototype is documented in the
> manual.
>
> 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.

Richard.