Re: xor as a lazy comparison
From: Paulo Marques (pmarques_at_grupopie.com)
Date: 07/25/05
- Previous message: Valdis.Kletnieks_at_vt.edu: "Re: Problem with Asus P4C800-DX and P4 -Northwood-"
- In reply to: Lee Revell: "Re: xor as a lazy comparison"
- Next in thread: Lee Revell: "Re: xor as a lazy comparison"
- Reply: Lee Revell: "Re: xor as a lazy comparison"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2005 20:23:17 +0100 To: Lee Revell <rlrevell@joe-job.com>
Lee Revell wrote:
> 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?
I guess this depends on what you logically want to do. If the problem
requires you to shift some value N bits, then you should use a shift
operation.
If what you want is to multiply a value by a certain ammount, you should
just use a multiplication.
Using a shift to perform the multiplication should be left to the
compiler IMHO.
The proof that the shift is not so clear is that even you got the shift
wrong in your own example ;)
-- Paulo Marques - www.grupopie.com It is a mistake to think you can solve any major problems just with potatoes. Douglas Adams - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
- Previous message: Valdis.Kletnieks_at_vt.edu: "Re: Problem with Asus P4C800-DX and P4 -Northwood-"
- In reply to: Lee Revell: "Re: xor as a lazy comparison"
- Next in thread: Lee Revell: "Re: xor as a lazy comparison"
- Reply: Lee Revell: "Re: xor as a lazy comparison"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|