Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: xor as a lazy comparison | From | Lee Revell <> | Date | Mon, 25 Jul 2005 15:25:35 -0400 |
| |
On Mon, 2005-07-25 at 20:23 +0100, Paulo Marques wrote: > 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 ;) >
Yeah, that was going to be my point, but I made it inadvertently before I even got that far...
Lee
- 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/
| |