On 24 June 2014 17:48, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> x86_64 gcc-4.8.3 made 1 less instruction, a shift.
I thought about doing this test for x86 as well, and over-estimated
compilers intelligence. I must have done it :)
And finally this patch is worth more than I originally estimated :)
--
To unsubscri
On Tue, 2014-06-24 at 10:03 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 10:01:01AM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> > We don't need 'broadcast' to be set to 'zero or one', but to 'zero or
> > non-zero'
> > and so the extra operation to convert it to 'zero or one' can be skipped.
> >
> > A
On 24 June 2014 13:33, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> All true; but does it change anything? That is, does your compiler
> generate better code because of this?
Compilers are smart enough now a days and may not perform !!
at all I believe.. And so this patch is more about code clarity ..
I tried compa
On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 10:01:01AM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> We don't need 'broadcast' to be set to 'zero or one', but to 'zero or
> non-zero'
> and so the extra operation to convert it to 'zero or one' can be skipped.
>
> Also change type of 'broadcast' to unsigned int, i.e. type of
> drv->st
We don't need 'broadcast' to be set to 'zero or one', but to 'zero or non-zero'
and so the extra operation to convert it to 'zero or one' can be skipped.
Also change type of 'broadcast' to unsigned int, i.e. type of
drv->states[*].flags.
Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar
---
Rebased over: 3.16-rc2.
5 matches
Mail list logo
