Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 22 Feb 2012 07:15:34 -0800 | From | "H. Peter Anvin" <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 00/10] jump label: introduce very_[un]likely + cleanups + docs |
| |
On 02/22/2012 07:12 AM, Steven Rostedt wrote: > On Wed, 2012-02-22 at 15:56 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: > >>> Because it really just looks like a stronger "unlikely()" and >>> fundamentally it really isn't. [...] >> >> Well, the fact is that right now it *is* a stronger unlikely() >> on architectures that have jump-labels and it's mapped to >> unlikely() on others. >> > > Has gcc been fix to make it truly an unlikely case and remove the "jmp; > jmp" problem of before? I'm still using gcc 4.6.0 which has the > following code for a tracepoint (example is the > trace_sched_migrate_task(). >
No, the jmp jmp problem still exists... I have discussed it with the gcc folks and they have an idea for how to fix it, but I haven't even gotten around to filing a formal RFE.
-hpa
-- H. Peter Anvin, Intel Open Source Technology Center I work for Intel. I don't speak on their behalf.
| |