Re: xor as a lazy comparison

Bill Davidsen
2005-07-25T20:22:48Z

Lee Revell wrote:
> On Mon, 2005-07-25 at 13:55 -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
>
>>Doesn't matter. The cycles saved for old compilers is not rational to
>>have obfuscated code.
>
>
> Where do we draw the line with this? Is x *= 2 preferable to x <<= 2 as
> well?

In addition to the obvious error, let's not use x += x as well. If you
want to multiple by two, do it.

Wasn't there a CPU where multiple was faster than add? Doesn't matter,
let the compiler make the optimizations so you don't have to.

--
-bill davidsen (davidsen@tmr.com)
"The secret to procrastination is to put things off until the
last possible moment - but no longer" -me