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

Ian Molton
2006-01-25T23:25:34Z

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.