DPDK patches and discussions
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>
To: Stephen Hemminger <stephen@networkplumber.org>,
	Yongseok Koh <yskoh@mellanox.com>
Cc: Adrien Mazarguil <adrien.mazarguil@6wind.com>,
	"dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 0/5] remove usage of register keyword in C
Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2018 14:07:18 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <bebe7dd0-0a63-0f25-347b-be0c7517135f@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20180801140356.5ac88c43@xeon-e3>

On 8/1/2018 10:03 PM, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> On Wed, 1 Aug 2018 18:03:04 +0000
> Yongseok Koh <yskoh@mellanox.com> wrote:
> 
>>> On Jul 31, 2018, at 11:07 AM, Stephen Hemminger <stephen@networkplumber.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Tue, 31 Jul 2018 18:48:40 +0200
>>> Adrien Mazarguil <adrien.mazarguil@6wind.com> wrote:
>>>   
>>>> On Tue, Jul 31, 2018 at 09:30:54AM -0700, Stephen Hemminger wrote:  
>>>>> Declaring variables as register in C is a leftover from an earlier
>>>>> era (like cassette tape decks in cars).    
>>>>
>>>> I don't agree here. It's a hint for compilers and developers that the
>>>> address of such variables won't be needed (and cannot be taken) to enable
>>>> whatever optimizations are possible knowing this.
>>>>
>>>> Somewhat like inline functions, it's not a forced optimization, just a
>>>> useful hint that shouldn't hurt if used wisely.
>>>>
>>>> Besides, cassette decks are not dead yet :)  
>>>
>>> If you look at the code, that is not how register is being used (ie. don't take
>>> address of this). It seems like an attempt at optimization.  
>>
>> I know compilers are smart enough and the occurrences in mlx4/5 were made from
>> my old fashioned habit. But, I don't see any urgency to push this patch in RC
>> stage even though I'm 99% sure that it is harmless. And in general I don't even
>> understand why we can't live with that if it isn't harmful (or a violation) but
>> informative. I mean no badness but at least one goodness :-)
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Yongseok
>>
> 
> Sure, this is intended for next release not rc stage.
> Just trying to clean up code base where I see it.

I agree with Yongseok, at worst they show the intention of the developer, I
don't see motivation to remove them unless they are doing something wrong, which
seems not the reason of this patch.

And although I found some information that says "register" ignored completely
for gcc, I can see it differs when optimization disabled.
I am not saying practically it differs, since we enable optimization expect from
debugging, most probably there is no practical difference between having the
keyword or not, but what I am trying to say is it not completely ignored either.

  reply	other threads:[~2018-08-23 13:07 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2018-07-31 16:30 Stephen Hemminger
2018-07-31 16:30 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 1/5] qat: remove redundant C register keyword Stephen Hemminger
2018-09-05 10:23   ` Jozwiak, TomaszX
2018-07-31 16:30 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 2/5] qede: remove register from declaraitons Stephen Hemminger
2018-07-31 16:30 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 3/5] ark: remove register keyword Stephen Hemminger
2018-07-31 16:30 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 4/5] mlx5: no need for " Stephen Hemminger
2018-07-31 16:30 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 5/5] mlx4: remove redunant " Stephen Hemminger
2018-07-31 16:48 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 0/5] remove usage of register keyword in C Adrien Mazarguil
2018-07-31 18:07   ` Stephen Hemminger
2018-08-01 18:03     ` Yongseok Koh
2018-08-01 21:03       ` Stephen Hemminger
2018-08-23 13:07         ` Ferruh Yigit [this message]
2018-10-09  9:19           ` Ferruh Yigit
2019-01-31  8:02             ` Tom Barbette
2019-01-31  9:11               ` Bruce Richardson
2019-01-31  9:39                 ` Tom Barbette
2019-01-31 17:34                 ` Wiles, Keith
2018-08-01 10:18 ` Matan Azrad

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-all 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=bebe7dd0-0a63-0f25-347b-be0c7517135f@intel.com \
    --to=ferruh.yigit@intel.com \
    --cc=adrien.mazarguil@6wind.com \
    --cc=dev@dpdk.org \
    --cc=stephen@networkplumber.org \
    --cc=yskoh@mellanox.com \
    /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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).