From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261570AbTDOO1p (for ); Tue, 15 Apr 2003 10:27:45 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261584AbTDOO1o (for ); Tue, 15 Apr 2003 10:27:44 -0400 Received: from smtp2.wanadoo.fr ([193.252.22.26]:44007 "EHLO mwinf0501.wanadoo.fr") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261570AbTDOO1m (for ); Tue, 15 Apr 2003 10:27:42 -0400 From: Duncan Sands To: "Martin J. Bligh" , Andrew Morton Subject: Re: BUGed to death Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2003 16:39:25 +0200 User-Agent: KMail/1.5.1 Cc: linux-kernel References: <80690000.1050351598@flay> <200304151401.00704.baldrick@wanadoo.fr> <69850000.1050417343@[10.10.2.4]> In-Reply-To: <69850000.1050417343@[10.10.2.4]> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200304151639.25978.baldrick@wanadoo.fr> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tuesday 15 April 2003 16:35, Martin J. Bligh wrote: > >> Seems all these bug checks are fairly expensive. I can get 1% > >> back on system time for kernel compiles by changing BUG to > >> "do {} while (0)" to make them all compile away. Profiles aren't > >> very revealing though ... seems to be within experimental error ;-( > > > > What happens if you just turn BUG_ON into "do {} while (0)"? > > I believe I already did that by turning BUG() into a null expression. > > #define BUG_ON(condition) > do { if (unlikely((condition)!=0)) BUG(); } while(0) > > The compiler should be smart enough to optimise that away, methinks. No, I meant what happens if BUG() is non-trivial and BUG_ON is a no-op. I thought it might give an indication of whether time was being lost evaluating the condition (occurs with BUG and BUG_ON), or mispredicting the branch (only occurs with BUG). Duncan.