On 11/13/2013 08:53 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > Il 12/11/2013 19:54, Richard Henderson ha scritto: >> For what it's worth, I think BOTH of the patches that have been posted >> should be applied. That is, the patch that does (X || 1) -> (1 || X), >> and the patch that adds the stub. >> >> Frankly I'd have thought this was obvious > > It's not that obvious to me. > > If you add the stub, the patch that reorders operands is not necessary. > If you reorder operands, the stub is not necessary. > > The patch that does (X || 1) -> (1 || X) is unnecessary as a > microoptimization, since this code basically runs once at startup. The > code is also a little bit less clear with the reordered operands, but > perhaps that's just me because I wrote the code that way. (Splitting > the if in two would also make sense, and would not affect clarity). > > Why should both be applied? It's worth working around the clang missed optimization, if for nothing else than avoiding the noise of the bugs that would otherwise be filed against the release. I think it's also worthwhile to implement the kvm api in kvm-stub.c, unnecessary or not. If you really want compile-time feedback on those that ought to have been removed by optimization, you could elide them from the stub file depending on ifndef __OPTIMIZE__. r~ -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
