* Anton Blanchard [2017-04-04 07:54:14]:
> From: Anton Blanchard
>
> When in the snooze_loop() we want to take up the least amount of
> resources. On my version of gcc (6.3), we end up with an extra
> branch because it predicts snooze_timeout_en to be false, whereas it
> is almost always true.
On Tue, 4 Apr 2017 07:54:14 +1000
Anton Blanchard wrote:
> From: Anton Blanchard
>
> When in the snooze_loop() we want to take up the least amount of
> resources. On my version of gcc (6.3), we end up with an extra
> branch because it predicts snooze_timeout_en to be false, whereas it
> is alm
From: Anton Blanchard
When in the snooze_loop() we want to take up the least amount of
resources. On my version of gcc (6.3), we end up with an extra
branch because it predicts snooze_timeout_en to be false, whereas it
is almost always true.
Use likely() to avoid the branch and be a little nicer
