From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list linux-mips); Wed, 25 Jan 2006 23:18:48 +0000 (GMT) Received: from outmail1.freedom2surf.net ([194.106.33.237]:13964 "EHLO outmail.freedom2surf.net") by ftp.linux-mips.org with ESMTP id S8133463AbWAYXSa (ORCPT ); Wed, 25 Jan 2006 23:18:30 +0000 Received: from [192.168.1.2] (i-195-137-81-187.freedom2surf.net [195.137.81.187]) by outmail.freedom2surf.net (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id k0PNMLch029388; Wed, 25 Jan 2006 23:22:21 GMT Message-ID: <43D808EE.9040906@f2s.com> Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2006 23:25:34 +0000 From: Ian Molton Organization: The Dragon Roost User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.7 (X11/20051219) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Russell King CC: Akinobu Mita , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Richard Henderson , Ivan Kokshaysky , dev-etrax@axis.com, David Howells , Yoshinori Sato , Linus Torvalds , linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org, Hirokazu Takata , linux-m68k@vger.kernel.org, Greg Ungerer , linux-mips@linux-mips.org, parisc-linux@parisc-linux.org, linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, linux390@de.ibm.com, linuxsh-dev@lists.sourceforge.net, linuxsh-shmedia-dev@lists.sourceforge.net, sparclinux@vger.kernel.org, ultralinux@vger.kernel.org, Miles Bader , Andi Kleen , Chris Zankel Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/6] C-language equivalents of include/asm-*/bitops.h References: <20060125112625.GA18584@miraclelinux.com> <20060125113206.GD18584@miraclelinux.com> <20060125200250.GA26443@flint.arm.linux.org.uk> In-Reply-To: <20060125200250.GA26443@flint.arm.linux.org.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-Path: X-Envelope-To: <"|/home/ecartis/ecartis -s linux-mips"> (uid 0) X-Orcpt: rfc822;linux-mips@linux-mips.org Original-Recipient: rfc822;linux-mips@linux-mips.org X-archive-position: 10155 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org Errors-to: linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org X-original-sender: spyro@f2s.com Precedence: bulk X-list: linux-mips 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.