Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Sat, 5 May 2001 10:06:35 -0700 | From | Richard Henderson <> | Subject | __builtin_expect vs inlining |
| |
On Sat, May 05, 2001 at 06:17:18PM +0400, Ivan Kokshaysky wrote: > > Eh? Would you give me an example that isn't working properly? > > Sure.
Fixed thus.
> So one of the questions: can one rely on current branch predictions > algorithms (val < 0, val = 0 false etc.) in the long term?
Err, no. We reserve the right to tweek the predictions, or to replace them with different heuristics. I'd hope they'd be _generally_ better heuristics, though the effect on any one particular test might change.
r~
* integrate.c (copy_insn_list): Substitute NOTE_EXPECTED_VALUE.
Index: integrate.c =================================================================== RCS file: /cvs/gcc/gcc/gcc/integrate.c,v retrieving revision 1.142 diff -c -p -r1.142 integrate.c *** integrate.c 2001/05/03 16:14:34 1.142 --- integrate.c 2001/05/05 16:54:24 *************** copy_insn_list (insns, map, static_chain *** 1536,1541 **** --- 1536,1546 ---- else NOTE_BLOCK (copy) = *mapped_block_p; } + else if (copy + && NOTE_LINE_NUMBER (copy) == NOTE_INSN_EXPECTED_VALUE) + NOTE_EXPECTED_VALUE (copy) + = copy_rtx_and_substitute (NOTE_EXPECTED_VALUE (insn), + map, 0); } else copy = 0; - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
|  |