From: Paulo Marques <pmarques@grupopie.com>
To: Lee Revell <rlrevell@joe-job.com>
Cc: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
Bernd Petrovitsch <bernd@firmix.at>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Grant Coady <lkml@dodo.com.au>,
Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@linux01.gwdg.de>,
Puneet Vyas <vyas.puneet@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: xor as a lazy comparison
Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2005 20:23:17 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <42E53C25.10100@grupopie.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1122318659.1472.14.camel@mindpipe>
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?
I guess this depends on what you logically want to do. If the problem
requires you to shift some value N bits, then you should use a shift
operation.
If what you want is to multiply a value by a certain ammount, you should
just use a multiplication.
Using a shift to perform the multiplication should be left to the
compiler IMHO.
The proof that the shift is not so clear is that even you got the shift
wrong in your own example ;)
--
Paulo Marques - www.grupopie.com
It is a mistake to think you can solve any major problems
just with potatoes.
Douglas Adams
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2005-07-25 19:27 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2005-07-24 16:40 xor as a lazy comparison Jan Engelhardt
2005-07-24 20:07 ` Grant Coady
2005-07-24 21:43 ` Jan Engelhardt
2005-07-24 22:15 ` Puneet Vyas
2005-07-25 8:57 ` Bernd Petrovitsch
2005-07-25 17:55 ` Steven Rostedt
2005-07-25 19:10 ` Lee Revell
2005-07-25 19:16 ` Philippe Troin
2005-07-25 19:18 ` Lee Revell
2005-07-26 6:07 ` Jan Engelhardt
2005-07-26 8:30 ` Bernd Petrovitsch
2005-07-25 19:24 ` Steven Rostedt
2005-07-25 19:27 ` Lee Revell
2005-07-25 19:23 ` Paulo Marques [this message]
2005-07-25 19:25 ` Lee Revell
2005-07-25 20:24 ` Bill Davidsen
2005-07-25 18:00 ` [PATCH] make signal.c more readable (was: Re: xor as a lazy comparison) Steven Rostedt
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2005-07-27 18:24 xor as a lazy comparison Clayton Weaver
2005-07-27 19:58 ` linux-os (Dick Johnson)
2005-07-28 0:04 ` Grant Coady
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=42E53C25.10100@grupopie.com \
--to=pmarques@grupopie.com \
--cc=akpm@osdl.org \
--cc=bernd@firmix.at \
--cc=jengelh@linux01.gwdg.de \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=lkml@dodo.com.au \
--cc=rlrevell@joe-job.com \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=vyas.puneet@gmail.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox