From: Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org>
To: "Kinney, Michael D" <michael.d.kinney@intel.com>
Cc: "edk2-devel@lists.01.org" <edk2-devel@lists.01.org>,
Leif Lindholm <leif.lindholm@linaro.org>,
"Gao, Liming" <liming.gao@intel.com>,
Evan Lloyd <evan.lloyd@arm.com>,
Alexei Fedorov <Alexei.Fedorov@arm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] MdePkg/DebugLib; swap if conditions in ASSERT_[EFI|RETURN]_ERROR
Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2017 17:09:37 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAKv+Gu8Jk=s-FHowLztoRYDaopWep+4wS9yJDxDP3Dsp2jmc2w@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <E92EE9817A31E24EB0585FDF735412F5A7DE0C06@ORSMSX113.amr.corp.intel.com>
On 7 December 2017 at 17:01, Kinney, Michael D
<michael.d.kinney@intel.com> wrote:
> Ard,
>
> The reason for the current ordering is for size optimization.
>
> The most common implementation of DebugAssertEnabled() uses
> a FixedAtBuild PCD to determine if these are enabled. The
> check of status can be optimized away if they are disabled.
> If you reverse them, then the status check is always performed.
>
DebugAssertEnabled() is a function call that gets resolved at link
time, and is not annotated as being free of side effects. So I agree
that the implementation of that function could be optimized into a
'return true' or 'return false' depending on the compile time values
of those PCDs, but the way the macro is defined currently, it still
requires the function call to be made, and the conditional compare
with a constant that follows will still be present in the code.
What I am suggesting is to replace it with a comparison with a
constant, and a conditional function call instead. This will not
affect code size, but will only remove needless function calls at
runtime.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-12-07 17:05 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-12-07 15:12 [PATCH] MdePkg/DebugLib; swap if conditions in ASSERT_[EFI|RETURN]_ERROR Ard Biesheuvel
2017-12-07 15:26 ` Ard Biesheuvel
2017-12-07 17:01 ` Kinney, Michael D
2017-12-07 17:09 ` Ard Biesheuvel [this message]
2017-12-07 17:13 ` Ard Biesheuvel
2017-12-07 17:36 ` Kinney, Michael D
2017-12-07 17:43 ` Ard Biesheuvel
2017-12-07 19:49 ` Kinney, Michael D
2017-12-07 19:52 ` Ard Biesheuvel
2017-12-07 20:33 ` Kinney, Michael D
2017-12-07 20:42 ` Ard Biesheuvel
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-list from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to='CAKv+Gu8Jk=s-FHowLztoRYDaopWep+4wS9yJDxDP3Dsp2jmc2w@mail.gmail.com' \
--to=devel@edk2.groups.io \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox