[PING^2][PATCH v2] Use __glibc_(un)likely instead __builtin_expect.

[OndÅej BÃlka <neleai at seznam dot cz>]

Ping,

As this conflicts with several changes that were done in meantime I
would first apply nonconflicting ones by 'patch -p1 < patch' and then
send patch for these added in meantime. OK to do that?

On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 10:57:51AM +0100, OndÅej BÃlka wrote:
> ping
> On Wed, Dec 04, 2013 at 10:49:11AM +0100, OndÅej BÃlka wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 12:48:43PM +0530, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:
> > > On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 12:01:31AM +0200, OndÅej BÃlka wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > Hi,
> > > > 
> > > > Now I return to one of todo-list issues which is using glibc-likely/unlikely.
> > > > 
> > > > First comes a easy case which can be expressed as following script.
> > > > 
> > > > cat $1 | sed -e "s/if (__builtin_expect (\(.*\), 0))/if (__glibc_unlikely (\1))/" | sed -e "s/if (__builtin_expect (\(.*\), 1))/if (__glibc_likely (\1))/"
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > Based on Roland's comment, I did some automated verification of the
> > > patch.  I found the following problems:
> > > 
> > > 1. Changes in whitespace in macro definitions
> > > 2. Changes in whitespace in malloc routines
> > > 
> > > Could you fix these and repost?
> > >
> > I reposted patch but sourceware thinks its spam,
> > 
> > To avoid that use following link:
> > 
> > http://kam.mff.cuni.cz/~ondra/libc_likely.patch
> >  

-- 

I'm sorry a pentium won't do, you need an SGI to connect with us.