On Wed, Sep 7, 2016 at 2:23 AM, Michel Dänzer <mic...@daenzer.net> wrote: > On 06/09/16 08:33 PM, Marek Olšák wrote: >> On Sep 6, 2016 12:03 PM, "Michel Dänzer" <mic...@daenzer.net >> <mailto:mic...@daenzer.net>> wrote: >>> On 06/09/16 06:04 PM, Marek Olšák wrote: >>> > On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 3:54 AM, Michel Dänzer <mic...@daenzer.net >> <mailto:mic...@daenzer.net>> wrote: >>> >> On 06/09/16 07:46 AM, Marek Olšák wrote: >>> >>> From: Marek Olšák <marek.ol...@amd.com <mailto:marek.ol...@amd.com>> >>> >> >>> >> Did you measure any significant performance boost with this change? >>> > >>> > I didn't measure anything. >>> > >>> >> Otherwise, using (un)likely can be bad because it can defeat the CPU's >>> >> branch prediction, which tends to be pretty good these days. >>> > >>> > I'm not an expert on that, but it doesn't seem to be the case >>> > according to other people's comments here. >>> >>> My main point (which Gustaw seems to agree with) is that (un)likely >>> should only be used when measurements show that they have a positive >> effect. >> >> I agree with you, but do you always measure the effect of unlikely? I >> almost never do and I just use it instinctively like most people do. Due >> to our manpower constraints, we can't even afford to measure performance >> for much bigger changes than this. > > So let's spend our manpower on more important things than (un)likely > annotations. :)
Based on the comments so far, it looks like all annotations in the patch are very well placed, so I don't know what the fuss is about. Let's spend our manpower on more important things than bikeshedding unlikely annotations that has already consumed much more time than me writing this trivial patch. Marek _______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
