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

From: Nicolas Pitre <nico_at_cam.org>
Date: 2006-01-27 03:30:43
On Thu, 26 Jan 2006, Grant Grundler wrote:

> On Thu, Jan 26, 2006 at 08:55:41AM +0000, Russell King wrote:
> > 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,
> By "written stupidly", I thought Richard meant they could have
> used constants instead of "s".  e.g.:
> 	if (word << 16 == 0) { b += 16; word >>= 16); }
> 	if (word << 24 == 0) { b +=  8; word >>=  8); }
> 	if (word << 28 == 0) { b +=  4; word >>=  4); }
> 
> But I prefer what Edgar Toernig suggested.

It is just as bad on ARM since it requires large constants that cannot 
be expressed with immediate litteral values.  The constant shift 
approach is really the best on ARM.


Nicolas
-
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 Fri Jan 27 03:31:20 2006

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 2006-01-27 03:31:30 EST