On Fri, 2018-06-15 at 10:36 -0600, Jeff Law wrote: > On 06/15/2018 10:35 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 15, 2018 at 10:31:26AM -0600, Jeff Law wrote: > > > On 06/14/2018 02:32 PM, David Malcolm wrote: > > > > The idea is to later use these macros to mark the > > > > if (dump_enabled_p ()) > > > > parts of the compiler as cold, in the hope of helping non-PGO > > > > builds > > > > of gcc. > > > > > > > > I haven't measured it yet, though. > > > > > > > > gcc/ChangeLog: > > > > * system.h (GCC_LIKELY, GCC_UNLIKELY): New macros, > > > > adapted from > > > > libgfortran.h. > > > > > > ISTM if we're going to bother with this stuff that we should try > > > to be > > > consistent between glibc and gcc. Anything else seems like utter > > > madness to me. > > > > Do we really need these macros at all? > > I certainly question this as well. > > > We are already using > > __builtin_expect directly in gcc/ subdirectory (with system.h > > providing > > a dummy macro if not supported by the host compiler). > > And I bet GCC developers are all familiar with __builtin_expect. > > Yup. But I doubt we want to litter the sources with references to > them.
Indeed. There's only one place where I was thinking of adding it (within dump_enabled_p), and as I said I haven't measured the impact yet. I'll drop this patch from the v3 patch kit. Dave
