On Thu, Feb 05 2015, Yury <yury.no...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 02.02.2015 15:56, Rasmus Villemoes wrote:
>> On Mon, Feb 02 2015, "George Spelvin" <li...@horizon.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Rasmus Villemoes <li...@rasmusvillemoes.dk> wrote:
>>>> ... and this be part of _find_next_bit? Can find_next_bit not be simply
>>>> 'return _find_next_bit(addr, size, offset, 1);', and similarly for
>>>> find_next_zero_bit? Btw., passing true and false for the boolean
>>>> parameter may be a little clearer.
>>> Looking at the generated code, it would be better to replace the boolean
>>> parameter with 0ul or ~0ul and XOR with it. The same number of registers,
>>> and saves a conditional branch.
>> Nice trick. When I compiled it, gcc inlined _find_next_bit into both its
>> callers, making the conditional go away completely. That was with gcc
>> 4.7. When I try with 5.0, I do see _find_next_bit being compiled
>> separately.
>>
>> With the proposed change, 4.7 also makes find_next{,_zero}_bit wrappers
>> for _find_next_bit, further reducing the total size, which is a good
>> thing. And, if some other version decides to still inline it, it
>> should then know how to optimize the xor with 0ul or ~0ul just as well
>> as when the conditional was folded away.
>>
>> Yury, please also incorporate this in the next round.
>>
>> Rasmus
>>
> Ok.
Good.
> What are you thinking about joining _find_next_bit and
> _find_next_bit_le?
I don't think that should be done right now, if at all. The series is
pretty close to getting my Reviewed-by; I'd prefer not to start over.
Rasmus
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
