Lee Revell <[email protected]> writes: > On Mon, 2005-07-25 at 13:55 -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote: > > Doesn't matter. The cycles saved for old compilers is not rational to > > have obfuscated code. > > Where do we draw the line with this? Is x *= 2 preferable to x <<= 2 as > well? Depends if you want to multiply by 2 or 4 :-) Phil. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: xor as a lazy comparison
- From: Lee Revell <[email protected]>
- Re: xor as a lazy comparison
- From: Steven Rostedt <[email protected]>
- Re: xor as a lazy comparison
- From: Lee Revell <[email protected]>
- Re: xor as a lazy comparison
- References:
- xor as a lazy comparison
- From: Jan Engelhardt <[email protected]>
- Re: xor as a lazy comparison
- From: Grant Coady <[email protected]>
- Re: xor as a lazy comparison
- From: Jan Engelhardt <[email protected]>
- Re: xor as a lazy comparison
- From: Puneet Vyas <[email protected]>
- Re: xor as a lazy comparison
- From: Bernd Petrovitsch <[email protected]>
- Re: xor as a lazy comparison
- From: Steven Rostedt <[email protected]>
- Re: xor as a lazy comparison
- From: Lee Revell <[email protected]>
- xor as a lazy comparison
- Prev by Date: 2.6.12 sound problem
- Next by Date: Re: xor as a lazy comparison
- Previous by thread: Re: xor as a lazy comparison
- Next by thread: Re: xor as a lazy comparison
- Index(es):
