Thank you for your time and attention on all these comments.
> Fine by me although we simply resembled initialization code from
> GSL here. I think that your subject line is a bit misleading though.
Yes, I had a hard time coming up with a good summary. I'm removing
*static* calls but not
On 06/07/2014 10:20 AM, George Spelvin wrote:
Unrolling code in single-use code paths is just silly. There are two
instances:
1) prandom_warmup() calls 10 times.
2) prandom_state_selftest() can avoid one call and simplify the
loop logic by repeating an assignment to a local variable
On 06/07/2014 10:20 AM, George Spelvin wrote:
Unrolling code in single-use code paths is just silly. There are two
instances:
1) prandom_warmup() calls 10 times.
2) prandom_state_selftest() can avoid one call and simplify the
loop logic by repeating an assignment to a local variable
Thank you for your time and attention on all these comments.
Fine by me although we simply resembled initialization code from
GSL here. I think that your subject line is a bit misleading though.
Yes, I had a hard time coming up with a good summary. I'm removing
*static* calls but not dynamic
Unrolling code in single-use code paths is just silly. There are two
instances:
1) prandom_warmup() calls 10 times.
2) prandom_state_selftest() can avoid one call and simplify the
loop logic by repeating an assignment to a local variable
(that probably adds zero code anyway)
Unrolling code in single-use code paths is just silly. There are two
instances:
1) prandom_warmup() calls 10 times.
2) prandom_state_selftest() can avoid one call and simplify the
loop logic by repeating an assignment to a local variable
(that probably adds zero code anyway)
6 matches
Mail list logo
