From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1756037AbcANPhZ (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Thu, 14 Jan 2016 10:37:25 -0500
Received: from mail113-250.mail.alibaba.com ([205.204.113.250]:33897 "EHLO
	us-alimail-mta2.hst.scl.en.alidc.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL)
	by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754681AbcANPhU (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Thu, 14 Jan 2016 10:37:20 -0500
X-Alimail-AntiSpam: AC=CONTINUE;BC=0.08248927|-1;FP=0|0|0|0|0|-1|-1|-1;HT=e01l10410;MF=chengang@emindsoft.com.cn;NM=1;PH=DS;RN=7;RT=6;SR=0;TI=SMTPD_----4SEV4B-_1452785776;
Message-ID: <5697C139.7040709@emindsoft.com.cn>
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2016 23:39:37 +0800
From: Chen Gang <chengang@emindsoft.com.cn>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Al Viro <viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
CC: dhowells@redhat.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org,
        nicolas.iooss_linux@m4x.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] fs: dcache: Use bool return value instead of int
References: <1452547845-12039-1-git-send-email-chengang@emindsoft.com.cn> <20160111225104.GO17997@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> <5695733C.1010201@emindsoft.com.cn> <20160112222105.GT17997@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> <5696D239.2000605@emindsoft.com.cn> <20160113225446.GU17997@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
In-Reply-To: <20160113225446.GU17997@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org


On 1/14/16 06:54, Al Viro wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 06:39:53AM +0800, Chen Gang wrote:
> 
>>> As for the inlines... frankly, if gcc generates a different code from having
>>> replaced int with bool in those, it's time to do something very nasty to
>>> gcc developers.
>>>
>>
>> Could you provide the related proof?
> 
> static inline _Bool f(.....)
> {
> 	return <int expression>;
> }
> 
> ...
> 	if (f(.....))
> 

For me, your case above isn't suitable for using bool. Please check this
patch, there is no any cases like you said above.

 - For d_unhashed() which return hlist_bl_unhashed(), it seems like your
   case, but in fact hlist_bl_unhashed() also need return bool (which I
   shall send another patch for, next).

 - And all the other changes of this patch are all for real, pure bool
   functions.

Thanks.

> should generate the code identical to
> 	if ((_Bool)<int expression>)
> which, in turn, should generate the code identical to
> 	if (<int expression> != 0)
> and
> 	if (<int expression>)
> 
> Neither explicit nor implicit conversion to _Bool (the former by the explicit
> cast, the latter - by declaring f() to return _Bool) matters at all when the
> damn thing is inlined in a condition context.  Conversion to _Bool is
> equivalent to comparison with 0, and so is the use in condition of if() and
> friends.
> 
> For something not inlined you might get different code generated due to a
> difference in calling sequences of _Bool(...) and int(...); for inlined
> case having one of those variants produce a better code means that compiler
> has managed to miss some trivial optimization in all other variants.
> 
> And I'm yet to see any proof that gcc *does* fuck up in that fashion.  It
> might - dumb bugs happen to everyone, but I would not assume that they'd
> managed to do something that bogys without experimental evidence.
> 

For your cases, what you said sounds OK to me (although I am not quite
sure what you said above whether precise or not).

Thanks.
-- 
Chen Gang (陈刚)

Open, share, and attitude like air, water, and life which God blessed