Andi Kleen a écrit :
quoted text
> On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 05:54:10PM +0100, Eric Dumazet wrote:
>> Andi Kleen a écrit :
>>> Eric Dumazet <dada1@cosmosbay.com> 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 netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html