On Sep 6, 2016 12:03 PM, "Michel Dänzer" <<a href="mailto:michel@daenzer.net">michel@daenzer.net</a>> wrote: > > On 06/09/16 06:04 PM, Marek Olšák wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 3:54 AM, Michel Dänzer <<a href="mailto:michel@daenzer.net">michel@daenzer.net</a>> wrote: > >> On 06/09/16 07:46 AM, Marek Olšák wrote: > >>> From: Marek Olšák <<a href="mailto:marek.olsak@amd.com">marek.olsak@amd.com</a>> > >> > >> Did you measure any significant performance boost with this change? > > > > I didn't measure anything. > > > >> Otherwise, using (un)likely can be bad because it can defeat the CPU's > >> branch prediction, which tends to be pretty good these days. > > > > I'm not an expert on that, but it doesn't seem to be the case > > according to other people's comments here. > > My main point (which Gustaw seems to agree with) is that (un)likely > should only be used when measurements show that they have a positive effect. I agree with you, but do you always measure the effect of unlikely? I almost never do and I just use it instinctively like most people do. Due to our manpower constraints, we can't even afford to measure performance for much bigger changes than this. Marek Marek > > > -- > Earthling Michel Dänzer | <a href="http://www.amd.com">http://www.amd.com</a> > Libre software enthusiast | Mesa and X developer >