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

From: Ian Molton <>
Date: 2006-01-26 10:25:34
Russell King wrote:

> This code generates more expensive shifts than our (ARMs) existing C
> version.  This is a backward step.
> Basically, shifts which depend on a variable are more expensive than
> constant-based shifts.

arm26 will have the same problem here.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ia64" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Received on Thu Jan 26 10:26:14 2006

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 2006-01-26 10:26:22 EST