Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 21 Feb 2012 16:11:45 -0500 | From | Mathieu Desnoyers <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 00/10] jump label: introduce very_[un]likely + cleanups + docs |
| |
* Steven Rostedt (rostedt@goodmis.org) wrote: > On Tue, 2012-02-21 at 15:20 -0500, Jason Baron wrote: > > > I'm not really too hung up on the naming, but I did think that > > very_[un]likely were an interesting possibility. > > The problem comes from what Peter said. They are too similar to > "likely()" and "unlikely()", and can become confusing. > > Maybe "static_likely()" and "static_unlikely()" as the word "static" can > imply something strange about these. Or perhaps a "const_likely()"?
My 2 cents:
static_likely()/static_unlikely() seems to be the less strange construct names I've seen fly so far. ;-) And they seem to convey the semantic of static branches and branch "hint" quite well.
Thanks,
Mathieu
> > Maybe "dynamic_branch_true()" and "dynamic_branch_false()". This may be > the most descriptive. > > -- Steve > > >
-- Mathieu Desnoyers Operating System Efficiency R&D Consultant EfficiOS Inc. http://www.efficios.com
| |