From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from dpdk.org (dpdk.org [92.243.14.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 77CCFA04AF; Mon, 4 May 2020 11:03:11 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4A2C01D448; Mon, 4 May 2020 11:03:11 +0200 (CEST) Received: from out2-smtp.messagingengine.com (out2-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.26]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EFA141D179 for ; Mon, 4 May 2020 11:03:09 +0200 (CEST) Received: from compute7.internal (compute7.nyi.internal [10.202.2.47]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 660D95C00D7; Mon, 4 May 2020 05:03:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailfrontend1 ([10.202.2.162]) by compute7.internal (MEProxy); Mon, 04 May 2020 05:03:09 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=monjalon.net; h= from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:content-type; s=fm1; bh= H+GbMgavUw/CdpeliK3cDTOXrpeDOBMvlUCSjAXtx0c=; b=fZ0wL2D7cZO4JTSP cosFZNCWw9UDs9LoB1PMziMkpCgZo262nTE2nuuvHnRw2QCrlETb2UOKu5D7diAW BUW2YrSy1YW32KwuDNOf5il0+N0KDjsfK4Gny165jTtunPD3qqICHZCrRxyDzn57 O6r8O3kCuu6iu2OIB8AkXIq/5R7gtnzd3XNnkqvWe9S9DYreLSqNn4nkT0hwcrPM 5jORuEMEyn+FeagKQIK0toO1jMXLDlKXofXIoprCYKAZFvbEmVL6oXF38SSzbrq7 Q18JnDSssynmGzhliOnnrxIxjwJpiG86E6ub0m3eX1lfKxQQph5lCotcYic167Ua itMIRw== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender :x-sasl-enc; s=fm2; bh=H+GbMgavUw/CdpeliK3cDTOXrpeDOBMvlUCSjAXtx 0c=; b=0gyH/PjpEHMyhN5LhNa/Q6FFhPJbcLbvu/ZTuBC7OlXS8nkfM9nIs+PiT yTueIIeHxpTxKdhOtGKRGa+zEvfrsW7gdhveeGvHjf9NAu/aUdIWvj8NUPaX4ClN x/SB++LbI/9ntBP2w58euV0JjTOLOUHqB+cfR5zr/QxLrvbU52GkvUbH9zmpeEs8 N9rdDEJr25UR8PfQApKkMBmtz4eyTB0Z9o+usyYSImLoyQ+XwTEBDsande/Sgb+f k6zSfgJk2lntvBlTyH3BbedGK0i0hZ7h65lTCdxkT/+6v8YgGkC0r6F69Y0uTDQx VAKuTzQ6ZZ70ZBTGLGvtzzIWsmMYQ== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeduhedrjeeggddutdcutefuodetggdotefrodftvf curfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfgfvfdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfghnecu uegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecusecvtfgvtghiphhivghnthhsucdlqddutddtmdenuc fjughrpefhvffufffkjghfggfgtgesthfuredttddtvdenucfhrhhomhepvfhhohhmrghs ucfoohhnjhgrlhhonhcuoehthhhomhgrshesmhhonhhjrghlohhnrdhnvghtqeenucggtf frrghtthgvrhhnpedugefgvdefudfftdefgeelgffhueekgfffhfeujedtteeutdejueei iedvffegheenucfkphepjeejrddufeegrddvtdefrddukeegnecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuih iivgeptdenucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilhhfrhhomhepthhhohhmrghssehmohhnjhgrlhho nhdrnhgvth X-ME-Proxy: Received: from xps.localnet (184.203.134.77.rev.sfr.net [77.134.203.184]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 078B0328005A; Mon, 4 May 2020 05:03:07 -0400 (EDT) From: Thomas Monjalon To: "Ananyev, Konstantin" Cc: Honnappa Nagarahalli , "dev@dpdk.org" , "aconole@redhat.com" , nd Date: Mon, 04 May 2020 11:03:06 +0200 Message-ID: <2150775.ElGaqSPkdT@thomas> In-Reply-To: References: <20200429175714.31141-1-konstantin.ananyev@intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] test/ring: code rework to reduce compilation time X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" 30/04/2020 16:43, Ananyev, Konstantin: > > Hi Honnappa, > > > Hi Konstantin, > > I like the way the tests are organized and it looks good. > > > > I am just wondering about the way it is being tested here. The intent to write the test cases the way they are currently is to mimic how the > > APIs would be used mostly. IMO, the APIs would be used with a constant value for element size so that the compiler will throw away the > > unwanted code (in the functions where the actual copy is being done). > > > > With your method here, it looks to me like all the branches in the copy functions are kept and the branch decisions are done at run time. > > Is my understanding correct? > > You mean branching on esize[] values? > Actually from what I've seen that happens for both cases: > before and after the patch (gcc 7.3 -O3). > > Main intention in my changes was to avoid using test_ring_enqueue/test_ring_dequeue, > as it seems too many branches here and it takes compiler a lot of effort to resolve all > of them at compile time. > So I replaced it with array of function pointers (test_enqdeq_impl[]) and iterating over it. > That way compiler knows straightway which function to use. In case we choose this solution, please make a v2 including such explanations.