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

From: Russell King <rmk+lkml_at_arm.linux.org.uk>
Date: 2006-01-26 19:55:41
On Wed, Jan 25, 2006 at 04:06:18PM -0800, Richard Henderson wrote:
> 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.

Unfortunately that's not correct.  You do not appear to have checked
the compiler output like I did - this code does _not_ generate
constant shifts.

-- 
Russell King
 Linux kernel    2.6 ARM Linux   - http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/
 maintainer of:  2.6 Serial core
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ia64" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Received on Thu Jan 26 19:56:38 2006

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 2006-01-26 19:56:45 EST