aprantl added inline comments.
================
Comment at: source/API/SBTarget.cpp:1467
+ }
+ const ConstString csFrom(from), csTo(to);
+ if (csFrom && csTo) {
----------------
apolyakov wrote:
> aprantl wrote:
> > personally I would write this as:
> > ```
> > if (!csFrom)
> > return error.SetErrorString("<from> path is empty");
> > if (!csTo)
> > return error.SetErrorString("<to> path is empty");
> > Log *log(lldb_private::GetLogIfAllCategoriesSet(LIBLLDB_LOG_API));
> > if (log)
> > log->Printf("SBTarget(%p)::%s: '%s' -> '%s'",
> > static_cast<void *>(target_sp.get()), __FUNCTION__,
> > from, to);
> > target_sp->GetImageSearchPathList().Append(csFrom, csTo, true);
> > ```
> in my opinion, the branch `if (csFrom && csTo)` will be executed in most
> cases, so it is reasonable to make it executed first, as this will benefit
> the branch prediction of the processor. Is this a worthwhile argument?
Not really. First, you don't actually control the order in which the code is
emitted by the compiler by rearranging the source code. Second, it doesn't make
sense to think about branch prediction outside of a tight loop as the effect
would not even be measurable. We should optimize for readability and compact
code here.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D49739
_______________________________________________
lldb-commits mailing list
lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
