On Wed, 2019-06-12 at 09:14 +0200, Pali Rohár wrote: > 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. defconfig so no debug symbols. It's not necessarily a gcc bug as gcc doesn't guarantee compiler repeatability.
