Hi Tejun,
Additionally,
On 2018-03-26 10:37 PM, yuankuiz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
Hi Tejun,
inline.
On 2018-03-26 10:25 PM, Tejun Heo wrote:
On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 10:20:43PM +0800, yuankuiz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
wrote:
1) return int type variable in bool function:
bool enabled()
{
int ret = 1;
return ret;
}
...
2)
bool enabled()
{
bool ret = 1;
return ret;
}
...
so the #1) style function can generate significant instructions
than the #2).
That is a problem for the compiler, not the code.
[ZJ] Actually, it should be bool but not int. Without any optimization
by compiler, it is the best if it is the same as returned.
While, this is happened only when "-On" is not used with *-gcc
together. Though, it is oftern there, it is best to provide this
with decoupling of which option is used for optimization.
We don't want to dictate minute coding styles to avoid things which
are trivially optimized by compilers.
[ZJ] Optimized by compiler is observed only. Such as it is not so big
difference in x86-arch.
Thanks.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe cgroups" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Thanks,
BR//Zhao
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe cgroups" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
