From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <rmk+linuxppc-dev=ozlabs.org@arm.linux.org.uk>
Received: from caramon.arm.linux.org.uk (caramon.arm.linux.org.uk
	[212.18.232.186])
	(using TLSv1 with cipher EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA (168/168 bits))
	(Client did not present a certificate)
	by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8F69D68A3D
	for <linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org>; Thu, 26 Jan 2006 19:56:16 +1100 (EST)
Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2006 08:55:41 +0000
From: Russell King <rmk+lkml@arm.linux.org.uk>
To: Akinobu Mita <mita@miraclelinux.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	Ivan Kokshaysky <ink@jurassic.park.msu.ru>,
	Ian Molton <spyro@f2s.com>, dev-etrax@axis.com,
	David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>,
	Yoshinori Sato <ysato@users.sourceforge.jp>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>, linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org,
	Hirokazu Takata <takata@linux-m32r.org>,
	linux-m68k@lists.linux-m68k.org, Greg Ungerer <gerg@uclinux.org>,
	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 <uclinux-v850@lsi.nec.co.jp>, Andi Kleen <ak@suse.de>,
	Chris Zankel <chris@zankel.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/6] C-language equivalents of include/asm-*/bitops.h
Message-ID: <20060126085540.GA15377@flint.arm.linux.org.uk>
References: <20060125112625.GA18584@miraclelinux.com>
	<20060125113206.GD18584@miraclelinux.com>
	<20060125200250.GA26443@flint.arm.linux.org.uk>
	<20060126000618.GA5592@twiddle.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
In-Reply-To: <20060126000618.GA5592@twiddle.net>
Sender: Russell King <rmk@arm.linux.org.uk>
List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List <linuxppc-dev.ozlabs.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev>,
	<mailto:linuxppc-dev-request@ozlabs.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://ozlabs.org/pipermail/linuxppc-dev>
List-Post: <mailto:linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org>
List-Help: <mailto:linuxppc-dev-request@ozlabs.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev>,
	<mailto:linuxppc-dev-request@ozlabs.org?subject=subscribe>

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