On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 8:14 AM Kevin Easton <kevin@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Given that it's always supposed to be used like that, mightn't it be > better if simd_relax() took a pointer to the context, so the call is > just > > simd_relax(&simd_context); > > ? > > The inlining means that there won't actually be a pointer dereference in > the emitted code. > > If simd_put() also took a pointer then it could set the context back to > HAVE_NO_SIMD as well? That's sort of a neat idea. I guess in this scheme, you'd envision: simd_context_t simd_context; simd_get(&simd_context); simd_relax(&simd_context); simd_put(&simd_context); And this way, if simd_context ever becomes a heavier struct, it can be modified in place rather than returned by value from the function. On the other hand, it's a little bit more annoying to type and makes it harder to do declaration and initialization on the same line.
