| To: | Daniel Jacobowitz <dan@debian.org> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: Observations on LLSC and SMP |
| From: | Ed Martini <martini@c2micro.com> |
| Date: | Fri, 25 Mar 2005 14:46:04 -0800 |
| Cc: | linux-mips@linux-mips.org |
| In-reply-to: | <20050325193759.GA23046@nevyn.them.org> |
| Original-recipient: | rfc822;linux-mips@linux-mips.org |
| References: | <4230DB4C.7090103@c2micro.com> <20050314110101.GF7759@linux-mips.org> <423763B9.2000907@c2micro.com> <20050316120647.GB8563@linux-mips.org> <42446555.6090005@c2micro.com> <20050325193759.GA23046@nevyn.them.org> |
| Sender: | linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org |
| User-agent: | Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0 (Windows/20041206) |
Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: Yes, but in the case where R10000_LLSC_WAR is true, but cpu_has_llsc returns false there are still two wasted tests, and two blocks of code that the compiler can't optimize out.On Fri, Mar 25, 2005 at 11:24:05AM -0800, Ed Martini wrote:1. If the first part of the if were an ifdef instead it would result in a code size reduction as well as a runtime performance gain.You should spend a little time playing with an optimizing compiler. They're capable of working out when a condition will always be false. |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | [PATCH] r4k_dma_cache_inv (arch/mips/mm/c-r4k.c), peter fuerst |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: Observations on LLSC and SMP, Daniel Jacobowitz |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: Observations on LLSC and SMP, Daniel Jacobowitz |
| Next by Thread: | Re: Observations on LLSC and SMP, Daniel Jacobowitz |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |