Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH] likely cleanup: remove unlikely for kfree(NULL) | From | Arjan van de Ven <> | Date | Thu, 27 Apr 2006 11:08:05 +0200 |
| |
On Thu, 2006-04-27 at 10:56 +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote: > On Thu, Apr 27, 2006 at 10:41:12AM +0200, Arjan van de Ven wrote: > > On Thu, 2006-04-27 at 10:31 +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote: > > > On Thu, Apr 27, 2006 at 08:50:40AM +0200, Arjan van de Ven wrote: > > > > On Thu, 2006-04-27 at 09:28 +0300, Pekka J Enberg wrote: > > > > > On Thu, 27 Apr 2006, Nick Piggin wrote: > > > > > > Not to dispute your conclusions or method, but I think doing a > > > > > > defconfig or your personal config might be more representative > > > > > > of % size increase of text that will actually be executed. And > > > > > > that is the expensive type of text. > > > > > > > > > > True but I was under the impression that Arjan thought we'd get text > > > > > savings with GCC 4.1 by making kfree() inline. > > > > > > > > not savings in text size, I'll settle for the same size. > > > >... > > > > > > It will always be bigger since there are cases where it's unknown at > > > compile time whether it will be NULL when called. > > > > if it's "unknown" you could call into a separate kfree() which does > > check out of line. (sure that's a dozen bytes bigger but that is > > noise ;) > > It's noise and _much work.
not if the compiler can do it. The *compiler* knows a lot (4.1 at least)..
- 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/
| |