Dear All thank you for your quick reply you are right, if the compiler do the job optimization Thank's for your help JJacques
On Sat, Mar 4, 2017 at 6:45 PM, Michael Hennebry < [email protected]> wrote: > On Sat, 4 Mar 2017, Jean-Jacques LOHEAC wrote: > > lines >> ./glpssx02.c: if (ssx->q == 0) >> ./glpssx02.c: if (ssx->p == 0) >> >> becomes >> ./glpssx02.c: if (!ssx->q) >> ./glpssx02.c: if (!ssx->p) >> >> If you look at the low level the processor has already load the value in >> the register and the status zero is already on or off >> it is not necessary to compare the value with zero. you optimize the code >> and the number of cpu cycles @ low level >> > > Do you have some reason to believe that the > compiler is too dumb to do that on its own? > > Changing the source gratuitously would require another > round of tests to ensure that it was done correctly. > > The choice might come down to legibility. > "if(flag)" is appropriate if flag is used as a bit. > "if(0==index)" is appropriate if index can have > multiple values and zero needs special handling. > > -- > Michael [email protected] > "Sorry but your password must contain an uppercase letter, a number, > a haiku, a gang sign, a heiroglyph, and the blood of a virgin." > -- > someeecards >
_______________________________________________ Help-glpk mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/help-glpk
