On Thu, May 5, 2022 at 8:12 PM Martin Liška <mli...@suse.cz> wrote:
>
> On 5/5/22 17:31, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> > On Thu, May 05, 2022 at 09:06:45AM -0400, Marek Polacek via Gcc-patches
> > wrote:
> >> On Thu, May 05, 2022 at 02:31:05PM +0200, Martin Liška wrote:
> >>> Some parts of the compiler already define:
> >>> #define likely(cond) __builtin_expect ((cond), 1)
> >>>
> >>> So the patch should unify it.
> >
> >> That's funny, yesterday I added another one:
> >> cp/parser.cc:cp_parser_init_declarator
> >> which is not replaced in this patch.
> >>
> >> I would've preferred the name gcc_{,un}likely but I don't want to start
> >> a long bikeshedding...
> >
> > GCC_LIKELY is fine with me. A bare LIKELY isn't though. We have much
> > more common macros having LIKELY in the name already (PROB_*LIKELY,
> > CLASS_LIKELY_SPILLED, the various IPA things, loop versioning, etc.),
> > but also we have LIKELY and UNLIKELY as function arguments in various
> > places.
>
> Well, out of the 2 suggested names (GCC_LIKELY and gcc_likely), I prefer
> GCC_LIKELY.
> You are right that LIKELY may confuse various people.
>
> Is the community fine with the suggested name?
GCC_ isn't any more special though. With quoting the other _LIKELY macros
a better name would be COND[ITION]_LIKELY, not GCC_LIKELY?
But I would have been fine with LIKELY as well.
Richard.
> Martin
>
> >
> >
> > Segher
>
