Re: [PATCH 3/6] C-language equivalents of include/asm-*/bitops.h

On Wed, Jan 25, 2006 at 08:02:50PM +0000, Russell King wrote:
> > +	s = 16; if (word << 16 != 0) s = 0; b += s; word >>= s;
> > +	s =  8; if (word << 24 != 0) s = 0; b += s; word >>= s;
> > +	s =  4; if (word << 28 != 0) s = 0; b += s; word >>= s;
...
> Basically, shifts which depend on a variable are more expensive than
> constant-based shifts.

Actually, they're all constant shifts.  Just written stupidly.


r~
-
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: [PATCH 3/6] C-language equivalents of include/asm-*/bitops.h
    • From: Russell King <[email protected]>
  • Re: [PATCH 3/6] C-language equivalents of include/asm-*/bitops.h
    • From: Edgar Toernig <[email protected]>

• References:
  • [PATCH 0/6] RFC: use include/asm-generic/bitops.h
    • From: [email protected] (Akinobu Mita)
  • [PATCH 3/6] C-language equivalents of include/asm-*/bitops.h
    • From: [email protected] (Akinobu Mita)
  • Re: [PATCH 3/6] C-language equivalents of include/asm-*/bitops.h
    • From: Russell King <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: [PATCH 5/6] fix warning on test_ti_thread_flag()
• Next by Date: Re: [patch, lock validator] fix proc_inum_lock related deadlock
• Previous by thread: Re: [PATCH 3/6] C-language equivalents of include/asm-*/bitops.h
• Next by thread: Re: [PATCH 3/6] C-language equivalents of include/asm-*/bitops.h
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread

[Index of Archives]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Photo]     [Stuff]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Linux for the blind]     [Linux Resources]