From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 30101 invoked by alias); 19 Jan 2004 17:58:40 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 30084 invoked from network); 19 Jan 2004 17:58:38 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO uniton.integrable-solutions.net) (62.212.99.186) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 19 Jan 2004 17:58:38 -0000 Received: from uniton.integrable-solutions.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by uniton.integrable-solutions.net (8.12.3/8.12.3/SuSE Linux 0.6) with ESMTP id i0JHpw9b009706; Mon, 19 Jan 2004 18:51:58 +0100 Received: (from gdr@localhost) by uniton.integrable-solutions.net (8.12.3/8.12.3/Submit) id i0JHpwEK009705; Mon, 19 Jan 2004 18:51:58 +0100 X-Authentication-Warning: uniton.integrable-solutions.net: gdr set sender to gdr@integrable-solutions.net using -f To: Roger Sayle Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: Compilation-time suggestion References: From: Gabriel Dos Reis In-Reply-To: Organization: Integrable Solutions Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 17:58:00 -0000 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-SW-Source: 2004-01/txt/msg01321.txt.bz2 Roger Sayle writes: | I have a proposal/suggestion for perhaps improving GCC compilation | time: Perhaps we could make more use of __builtin_expect inside the | compiler itself. This has been suggested in the past http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/libstdc++/2002-11/msg00151.html and RTH made this comment: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/libstdc++/2002-11/msg00171.html In fact, from a recent thread on libstdc++ list, I've come to agree with RTH comment. I believe you would benefit much more from *algorithmic* and *data-structure* improvements than from __builtin_expect which would just add one more level of obfuscation to the already difficult to follow source base. Let's go that way first. -- Gaby