> On Dec 27, 2014, at 1:40 PM, Andrew Haley <a...@redhat.com> wrote: > > On 27/12/14 18:04, Matt Godbolt wrote: >> On Sat, Dec 27, 2014 at 11:57 AM, Andrew Haley <a...@redhat.com> wrote: > >>> if you don't need an atomic access, why do you care that it uses a >>> read-modify-write instruction instead of three instructions? Is it >>> faster? Have you measured it? Is it so much faster that it's >>> critical for your application? >> >> Good point. No; I've yet to measure it but I will. I'll be honest: my >> instinct is that really it won't make a measurable difference. From a >> microarchitectural point of view it devolves to almost exactly the >> same set of micro-operations (barring the duplicate memory address >> calculation). It does encode to a longer instruction stream (15 bytes >> vs 7 bytes), so there's an argument it puts more pressure than needed >> on the i-cache. But honestly, it's more from an aesthetic point of >> view I prefer the increment. > > Aha! I get it now. > > I know that it's not really necessary to know a questioner's > motivation for a question like this: it makes no difference to the > answer. But you really had me mystified because I was assuming that > there had to be a practical reason for all this.
Let’s not forget -Os. Most people optimize for speed, but optimization for size is needed at times and this is the sort of issue that affects it directly. paul