On Fri, 8 Dec 2006, Mariusz Kozlowski wrote:
> > > Just for future. Shorter and more readable version of your for(...) thing:
> > >
> > > while (i--) {
> > > ...
> > > }
> > >
> >
> > No, that is not equivalent.
> >
> > You want
> > while (i-- >= 0) {
> > ...
> > }
> >
>
> Not really. That will stop at -1 not 0.
>
It depends on your intent. Generally speaking,
while (i--) {
...
}
is never what you want. Adding the check for being greater than 0 stops
potential bugs from signed int i being negative. The only drawback on x86
is that it sets a byte based on the greater condition with setg and tests
it later with testb for every iteration. This use of testb will _always_
use the same addressable byte registers for both its operands.
Based on this particular patch, I agree that
while (i-- > 0) {
...
}
will do the job. This is equivalent to the original for loop and ensures
that a negative value of i is never iterated on (even though it admittedly
would never be negative in this instance to begin with).
David
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
