From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Paul Eggert Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Using __builtin_expect (likely/unlikely macros) Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2019 09:57:14 -0700 Organization: UCLA Computer Science Department Message-ID: References: <87a7gst973.fsf@gmail.com> <875zrgt12q.fsf@gmail.com> <6919a4c8-df76-ea1e-34db-1fa62a360e5a@cs.ucla.edu> <87h8aykdod.fsf@gmail.com> <4fa7885e-8c66-c7c4-ff71-a013505863af@cs.ucla.edu> <2dfb837d-989d-c736-b6e6-b20c0e940596@cs.ucla.edu> <87o956c4n4.fsf@gmail.com> <1fbd2fca-18f0-0a90-7a45-58419a9e11ee@cs.ucla.edu> <1555450070.23658.4@yandex.ru> <66b74701-012a-902e-4a5b-6bc30efa87c0@cs.ucla.edu> <87tveu85xt.fsf@gmail.com> <86ef5wd7az.fsf@gmail.com> <9461246c-409b-15fd-943b-3d673c679870@cs.ucla.edu> <8336mcbr62.fsf@gnu.org> <45401975-175e-841e-37da-707a9344a024@cs.ucla.edu> <831s1wbqfq.fsf@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Injection-Info: blaine.gmane.org; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:195.159.176.226"; logging-data="76648"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@blaine.gmane.org" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.6.1 Cc: andrewjmoreton@gmail.com, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sat Apr 20 19:04:26 2019 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by blaine.gmane.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1hHtPc-000Jnt-RO for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 20 Apr 2019 19:04:24 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:43452 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hHtPb-0005T7-Tf for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 20 Apr 2019 13:04:23 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:38222) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hHtPP-0005Jl-QH for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 20 Apr 2019 13:04:12 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hHtIm-0000P0-SF for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 20 Apr 2019 12:57:21 -0400 Original-Received: from zimbra.cs.ucla.edu ([131.179.128.68]:54478) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hHtIk-0000C2-5s; Sat, 20 Apr 2019 12:57:18 -0400 Original-Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zimbra.cs.ucla.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 36412161812; Sat, 20 Apr 2019 09:57:16 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: from zimbra.cs.ucla.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (zimbra.cs.ucla.edu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10032) with ESMTP id O2BIYl1vyAhS; Sat, 20 Apr 2019 09:57:15 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zimbra.cs.ucla.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6A699161814; Sat, 20 Apr 2019 09:57:15 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at zimbra.cs.ucla.edu Original-Received: from zimbra.cs.ucla.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (zimbra.cs.ucla.edu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id 2s4w9aI7X8j3; Sat, 20 Apr 2019 09:57:15 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: from [192.168.1.9] (cpe-23-242-74-103.socal.res.rr.com [23.242.74.103]) by zimbra.cs.ucla.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 1BFA6161811; Sat, 20 Apr 2019 09:57:15 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <831s1wbqfq.fsf@gnu.org> Content-Language: en-US X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 3.x X-Received-From: 131.179.128.68 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "Emacs-devel" Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:235701 Archived-At: Eli Zaretskii wrote: > Sure, but the effect on code readability also multiplies, right? Yes, of course one must weigh cost and benefits. In this case the patch not only improved performance, it also made the code smaller and in my opinion more readable: the total source code size shrank by 1775 bytes. Source-code improvements add up too, and we should encourage them even if they're small, as they are a welcome partial antidote to the bloat that often afflicts older software projects.