| ▲ | anthonj 4 hours ago | |||||||
I think this call for something similar to "__builtin_expect" or linux' likely()/unlikely(). Not very clean, but better than inserting obscure optimisations in the source. | ||||||||
| ▲ | gblargg 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | |||||||
Assuming compilers are smart enough to insert an unnecessary branch to break the dependency. | ||||||||
| ||||||||
| ▲ | purplesyringa 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | |||||||
That would be great, if only it worked as intended! From the perspective of an optimizing compiler, `a == b ? a : b` is worse than `b` regardless of the probability you assign to `a == b`. ETA: someone on Lobsters (https://lobste.rs/s/1an425/quadrupling_code_performance_with...) noticed that `[[unlikely]]` actually works on LLVM (not on GCC, and with worse codegen on LLVM, but it's still good to know) -- updated the post. | ||||||||
| ▲ | MaxBarraclough 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | |||||||
I was wondering the same thing. Also, could profile-guided optimisation help here? | ||||||||