From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS22989 209.51.188.0/24 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.9 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_INVALID, DKIM_SIGNED,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from lists.gnu.org (lists.gnu.org [209.51.188.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6E2B71F461 for ; Sat, 29 Jun 2019 17:49:37 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost ([::1]:41684 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.86_2) (envelope-from ) id 1hhHTh-0004ZA-7i for normalperson@yhbt.net; Sat, 29 Jun 2019 13:49:33 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:37152) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.86_2) (envelope-from ) id 1hhHT0-0004UO-Oc for bug-gnulib@gnu.org; Sat, 29 Jun 2019 13:48:52 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hhHSz-0006yr-PZ for bug-gnulib@gnu.org; Sat, 29 Jun 2019 13:48:50 -0400 Received: from mo6-p00-ob.smtp.rzone.de ([2a01:238:20a:202:5300::2]:34298) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hhHSx-0006v2-TA for bug-gnulib@gnu.org; Sat, 29 Jun 2019 13:48:49 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; t=1561830522; s=strato-dkim-0002; d=clisp.org; h=References:In-Reply-To:Message-ID:Date:Subject:Cc:To:From: X-RZG-CLASS-ID:X-RZG-AUTH:From:Subject:Sender; bh=tcdPX/lsQ4mdwRf039gNRd9OEZp4iTKFtb5VAL3oGyE=; b=apN7eVKXiDhVH7JOZeNCXNNJun4+0WirfLejjNRkxgMTW4PplvaBvoJWaN5BKde1Pe aMuZxPVxqaLzZm/58BS0scNkt4ODY5jUYKGav+WcU0sjGux4ygpYXgNjm7cP9ejjVHV5 IGre3Nr7QvINb93mFH2RqD3a2j5Y7+I/xiSrOG+DnpMeiFkHBWTDuKYjmy2AIDGLUN7U lHiQ79m6BhC3XX+jzjZkUv2GSrioV6Ugior1s8v6lN0TnRU6VoqcgpL3LHXlvjSf6ZtM qk55zmG4m0yUEPOs1DG9EclMY3IMu5t86AdkewB9ghFisee9hcR4x7/RdmiyWaBL6+U/ uSfQ== X-RZG-AUTH: ":Ln4Re0+Ic/6oZXR1YgKryK8brlshOcZlIWs+iCP5vnk6shH+AHjwLuWOGaf0zJZW" X-RZG-CLASS-ID: mo00 Received: from bruno.haible.de by smtp.strato.de (RZmta 44.24 DYNA|AUTH) with ESMTPSA id v018bcv5THmbmwQ (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (curve secp521r1 with 521 ECDH bits, eq. 15360 bits RSA)) (Client did not present a certificate); Sat, 29 Jun 2019 19:48:37 +0200 (CEST) From: Bruno Haible To: Paul Eggert Subject: Re: bug#36370: 27.0.50; XFIXNAT called on negative numbers Date: Sat, 29 Jun 2019 19:48:37 +0200 Message-ID: <3251111.n4rrPxjoDE@omega> User-Agent: KMail/5.1.3 (Linux/4.4.0-151-generic; KDE/5.18.0; x86_64; ; ) In-Reply-To: <99bacb9f-1192-1315-85d7-5ab4924dfef8@cs.ucla.edu> References: <2515002.Q0mBYvUW8C@omega> <99bacb9f-1192-1315-85d7-5ab4924dfef8@cs.ucla.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 2a01:238:20a:202:5300::2 X-BeenThere: bug-gnulib@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: Gnulib discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: 36370@debbugs.gnu.org, bug-gnulib@gnu.org, Pip Cet Errors-To: bug-gnulib-bounces+normalperson=yhbt.net@gnu.org Sender: "bug-gnulib" Hi Paul, > > + If you want the use of this macro to improve, not deteriorate, > > + performance, R should not contain function calls except to functions > > + that are declared 'inline __attribute__((__always_inline__))'. */ > > A reader of that might incorrectly conclude that using such functions will > always improve performance, compared to using functions not declared that way. For functions not declared 'inline __attribute__((__always_inline__))', it depends on the inlining heuristics of the compiler whether the 'assume (R)' will be a performance improvement or the opposite. > Also, given Pip Cet's misunderstanding it'd be helpful to add a word or two > about the intent of 'assume (R)'. > > How about the attached patch? That's a good compromise. > > - evaluated. Behavior is undefined if R is false. */ > > + evaluated. The behavior is undefined if R is false. > > This is a nit, but to my ears the shorter version is better OK, fine. Bruno