Messages in this thread | ![/](/images/icornerl.gif) | | Date | Fri, 30 May 2003 17:13:17 +0200 | From | "J.A. Magallon" <> | Subject | Re: drivers/char/sysrq.c |
| |
On 05.30, Jörn Engel wrote: > On Fri, 30 May 2003 16:44:55 +0200, Margit Schubert-While wrote: > > > > In drivers/char/sysrq.c (2.4 and 2.5) we have : > > > > if ((key >= '0') & (key <= '9')) { > > retval = key - '0'; > > } else if ((key >= 'a') & (key <= 'z')) { > > > > Shouldn't the "&" be (pedantically) "&&" ? > > It is semantically the same. If you can show that gcc optimization > also creates the same assembler code, few people will object to a > patch. >
I see a diff: - & is bitwise and you always perform the op - && is logical and gcc must shortcut it
I think people use & 'cause they prefer the extra argument calculation than the branch for the shortcut (AFAIR...)
or not ?
-- J.A. Magallon <jamagallon@able.es> \ Software is like sex: werewolf.able.es \ It's better when it's free Mandrake Linux release 9.2 (Cooker) for i586 Linux 2.4.21-rc6-jam1 (gcc 3.2.3 (Mandrake Linux 9.2 3.2.3-1mdk)) - 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/
| ![\](/images/icornerr.gif) |