On 9/4/16 09:01, Al Viro wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 04, 2016 at 06:36:56AM +0800, Chen Gang wrote:
>
>> And for all: shall I provide the proof for another archs?
>>
>> For me, Boolean gives additional chance to compiler to improve the code.
>
> Whereas for compiler it gives nothing. Not in those
On 9/4/16 09:01, Al Viro wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 04, 2016 at 06:36:56AM +0800, Chen Gang wrote:
>
>> And for all: shall I provide the proof for another archs?
>>
>> For me, Boolean gives additional chance to compiler to improve the code.
>
> Whereas for compiler it gives nothing. Not in those
On 9/4/16 09:01, Al Viro wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 04, 2016 at 06:36:56AM +0800, Chen Gang wrote:
>
>> And for all: shall I provide the proof for another archs?
>>
>> For me, Boolean gives additional chance to compiler to improve the code.
>
> Whereas for compiler it gives nothing. Not in those
On 9/4/16 09:01, Al Viro wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 04, 2016 at 06:36:56AM +0800, Chen Gang wrote:
>
>> And for all: shall I provide the proof for another archs?
>>
>> For me, Boolean gives additional chance to compiler to improve the code.
>
> Whereas for compiler it gives nothing. Not in those
On Sun, Sep 04, 2016 at 06:36:56AM +0800, Chen Gang wrote:
> And for all: shall I provide the proof for another archs?
>
> For me, Boolean gives additional chance to compiler to improve the code.
Whereas for compiler it gives nothing. Not in those cases.
> If the compiler can not improve the
On Sun, Sep 04, 2016 at 06:36:56AM +0800, Chen Gang wrote:
> And for all: shall I provide the proof for another archs?
>
> For me, Boolean gives additional chance to compiler to improve the code.
Whereas for compiler it gives nothing. Not in those cases.
> If the compiler can not improve the
On 9/3/16 08:07, Vineet Gupta wrote:
> On 09/02/2016 04:33 PM, Chen Gang wrote:
>> On 9/2/16 04:43, Al Viro wrote:
Can you show a proof that it actually improves anything? He who proposes
a patch gets to defend it, not the other way round...
Al, bloody annoyed
>>
On 9/3/16 08:07, Vineet Gupta wrote:
> On 09/02/2016 04:33 PM, Chen Gang wrote:
>> On 9/2/16 04:43, Al Viro wrote:
Can you show a proof that it actually improves anything? He who proposes
a patch gets to defend it, not the other way round...
Al, bloody annoyed
>>
On 09/02/2016 04:33 PM, Chen Gang wrote:
> On 9/2/16 04:43, Al Viro wrote:
>> > On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 05:49:05AM +0800, Chen Gang wrote:
>> >
>>> >> Could you provide the related proof?
>>> >>
>>> >> Or shall I try to analyze about it and get proof?
>> >
>> > Can you show a proof that it
On 09/02/2016 04:33 PM, Chen Gang wrote:
> On 9/2/16 04:43, Al Viro wrote:
>> > On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 05:49:05AM +0800, Chen Gang wrote:
>> >
>>> >> Could you provide the related proof?
>>> >>
>>> >> Or shall I try to analyze about it and get proof?
>> >
>> > Can you show a proof that it
On 9/2/16 04:43, Al Viro wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 05:49:05AM +0800, Chen Gang wrote:
>
>> Could you provide the related proof?
>>
>> Or shall I try to analyze about it and get proof?
>
> Can you show a proof that it actually improves anything? He who proposes
> a patch gets to defend
On 9/2/16 04:43, Al Viro wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 05:49:05AM +0800, Chen Gang wrote:
>
>> Could you provide the related proof?
>>
>> Or shall I try to analyze about it and get proof?
>
> Can you show a proof that it actually improves anything? He who proposes
> a patch gets to defend
On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 05:49:05AM +0800, Chen Gang wrote:
> Could you provide the related proof?
>
> Or shall I try to analyze about it and get proof?
Can you show a proof that it actually improves anything? He who proposes
a patch gets to defend it, not the other way round...
Al, bloody
On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 05:49:05AM +0800, Chen Gang wrote:
> Could you provide the related proof?
>
> Or shall I try to analyze about it and get proof?
Can you show a proof that it actually improves anything? He who proposes
a patch gets to defend it, not the other way round...
Al, bloody
14 matches
Mail list logo