Paul Eggert wrote: > Pádraig Brady <p...@draigbrady.com> writes: > >> I did also check the speed with a test program >> (attached) which showed the logical test was a bit faster on my pentium-m. >> Note I compiled without optimization > > I would expect optimization would be crucial: I got the 60% increase > in number of instructions for && when compiling with optimization, and > without optimization there was almost no difference between && and &.
Well I posted the sizes for the default compile (-O2) which shows a net size reduction of 208 bytes from the total size of all programs. > Although I admit that it bugs me that the change makes the code slower > and fatter, my primary objection is that short-circuit AND has more > complicated semantics than Boolean AND, and we shouldn't necessarily > favor the former over the latter. TBH I don't find this. I find the logical operations a higher level thing that's easier for me to comprehend at least, and possibly for (future) compilers also. > I agree that the bitwise part of > the logical AND in traditional C 'int' semantics is a problem, but to > my mind it's not a problem that necessarily overwhelms the > short-circuit disadvantage. Yep that's a side issue on older compilers. cheers, Pádraig.
