[lkml]   [2012]   [Feb]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [PATCH 00/10] jump label: introduce very_[un]likely + cleanups + docs
    On 02/22/2012 07:12 AM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
    > On Wed, 2012-02-22 at 15:56 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
    >>> Because it really just looks like a stronger "unlikely()" and
    >>> fundamentally it really isn't. [...]
    >> Well, the fact is that right now it *is* a stronger unlikely()
    >> on architectures that have jump-labels and it's mapped to
    >> unlikely() on others.
    > Has gcc been fix to make it truly an unlikely case and remove the "jmp;
    > jmp" problem of before? I'm still using gcc 4.6.0 which has the
    > following code for a tracepoint (example is the
    > trace_sched_migrate_task().

    No, the jmp jmp problem still exists... I have discussed it with the gcc
    folks and they have an idea for how to fix it, but I haven't even gotten
    around to filing a formal RFE.


    H. Peter Anvin, Intel Open Source Technology Center
    I work for Intel. I don't speak on their behalf.

     \ /
      Last update: 2012-02-22 16:19    [W:0.020 / U:1.320 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site