public inbox for devel@edk2.groups.io
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org>
To: "Kinney, Michael D" <michael.d.kinney@intel.com>
Cc: Alexei Fedorov <Alexei.Fedorov@arm.com>,
	 "edk2-devel@lists.01.org" <edk2-devel@lists.01.org>,
	"Gao, Liming" <liming.gao@intel.com>,
	Leif Lindholm <leif.lindholm@linaro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] MdePkg/DebugLib; swap if conditions in ASSERT_[EFI|RETURN]_ERROR
Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2017 17:43:29 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAKv+Gu9sfNKn7AYYH0j3V6HhKsd+L+6kL7AJaVZczJ=P_d3SUQ@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <E92EE9817A31E24EB0585FDF735412F5A7DE1C59@ORSMSX113.amr.corp.intel.com>

On 7 December 2017 at 17:36, Kinney, Michael D
<michael.d.kinney@intel.com> wrote:
> Ard,
>
> With link time optimization, the current order produces
> smaller code.
>

I don't think it does. You are essentially saying that
DebugAssertEnabled() may resolve to a link time constant FALSE under
LTO.

In that case, why would the following two statement not be equivalent?

if (FALSE && EFI_ERROR (StatusParameter)) {}

if (EFI_ERROR (StatusParameter) && FALSE) {}

(which is essentially what a nested if () resolves to)

In other words, the compiler is smart enough to drop the status check
in the second case, because it can see there are no side effects, and
the condition can never be made true anyway.

> Without link time optimization, your patch will produce
> smaller code, but not as small as link time optimized code.
>


  reply	other threads:[~2017-12-07 17:38 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
2017-12-07 17:13       ` Ard Biesheuvel
2017-12-07 17:36         ` Kinney, Michael D
2017-12-07 17:43           ` Ard Biesheuvel [this message]
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+Gu9sfNKn7AYYH0j3V6HhKsd+L+6kL7AJaVZczJ=P_d3SUQ@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