Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752436AbZA1Tx4 (ORCPT ); Wed, 28 Jan 2009 14:53:56 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751172AbZA1Txt (ORCPT ); Wed, 28 Jan 2009 14:53:49 -0500 Received: from aun.it.uu.se ([130.238.12.36]:44715 "EHLO aun.it.uu.se" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750979AbZA1Txs (ORCPT ); Wed, 28 Jan 2009 14:53:48 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <18816.47047.304831.827133@harpo.it.uu.se> Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2009 20:53:43 +0100 From: Mikael Pettersson To: Davide Libenzi Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List Subject: Re: if (unlikely(...)) == unnecessary? In-Reply-To: References: X-Mailer: VM 7.17 under Emacs 20.7.1 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 589 Lines: 14 Davide Libenzi writes: > I noticed that GCC >= 3.3 (not tried the ones before) automatically > branches out the "if" code (and follow-through the "else" code, if there). > Is that a coincidence or a rule we can rely on going forward? Coincidence. Why on earth would you want to rely on an purely private implementation detail like that? -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/