Andi Kleen a écrit : > On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 05:54:10PM +0100, Eric Dumazet wrote: >> Andi Kleen a écrit : >>> Eric Dumazet <dada1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: >>> >>>> While doing oprofile tests I noticed two loops are not properly unrolled by gcc >>> That's because nobody passed -funroll-loops. Did you try that for >>> that file? Likely will need -O2 too >> I dont want to unroll all loops, only those two :) > > gcc 4.4 will have a way to do that per function, but earlier > you would need to move it to a separate file and specify > the option only for that. > > Doing so would be still a good idea compared to your > patch because the code will be cleaner and might > be more adaptable to future architectures > (such manual tunings tend to outdate) So... you suggest me to split file, and use a "-funroll-loops", that might doing strange things on some arches / compilers... This is far too complicated and risky imho. Check compare_ether_addr_64bits() definition in include/linux/etherdevice.h for a truly unreadable code :) -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netfilter-devel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
