On Tuesday 11 June 2019 17:59:13 Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > Hi Joe, > > On Wed, Jun 05, 2019 at 07:28:53PM -0700, Joe Perches wrote: > > On Thu, 2019-06-06 at 09:08 +0800, Kefeng Wang wrote: > > > On 2019/6/5 22:42, Pali Rohár wrote: > > > > On Wednesday 05 June 2019 22:24:28 Kefeng Wang wrote: > > > > > IS_ERR(_OR_NULL) already contain an 'unlikely' compiler flag, > > > > > so no need to do that again from its callers. Drop it. > > > > Hi! I already reviewed this patch and rejected it, see: > > > > https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10817475/ > > > OK, please ignore it. > > > > I think the stated reason of better readability isn't > > particularly sensible as the object code produced is > > actually slightly larger. > > > > x86-64 defconfig (gcc 8.3.0) > > > > $ size drivers/input/mouse/alps.o* > > text data bss dec hex filename > > 29416 56 0 29472 7320 drivers/input/mouse/alps.o.new > > 29432 56 0 29488 7330 drivers/input/mouse/alps.o.old > > If gcc produces worse code for double unlikely, you should probably > report it to gcc folks, no? Or double unlikely turns into likely? Is measured size of stripped or unstripped binary? Plus with or without debug symbols? Double unlikely version should have more debug symbols and therefore also larger size. But if unstripped version with double unlikely is larger then it is for sure compiler bug. -- Pali Rohár pali.rohar@xxxxxxxxx
