Re: cmsg newgroup alt.sex.fetish.bool (was Re: [PATCH] arch: all: include: asm: bitops: Use bool instead of int for all bit test functions)

2016-09-11 Thread Chen Gang
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

Re: cmsg newgroup alt.sex.fetish.bool (was Re: [PATCH] arch: all: include: asm: bitops: Use bool instead of int for all bit test functions)

2016-09-11 Thread Chen Gang
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

Re: cmsg newgroup alt.sex.fetish.bool (was Re: [PATCH] arch: all: include: asm: bitops: Use bool instead of int for all bit test functions)

2016-09-07 Thread Chen Gang
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

Re: cmsg newgroup alt.sex.fetish.bool (was Re: [PATCH] arch: all: include: asm: bitops: Use bool instead of int for all bit test functions)

2016-09-07 Thread Chen Gang
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

Re: cmsg newgroup alt.sex.fetish.bool (was Re: [PATCH] arch: all: include: asm: bitops: Use bool instead of int for all bit test functions)

2016-09-03 Thread Al Viro
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

Re: cmsg newgroup alt.sex.fetish.bool (was Re: [PATCH] arch: all: include: asm: bitops: Use bool instead of int for all bit test functions)

2016-09-03 Thread Al Viro
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

Re: cmsg newgroup alt.sex.fetish.bool (was Re: [PATCH] arch: all: include: asm: bitops: Use bool instead of int for all bit test functions)

2016-09-03 Thread Chen Gang
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 >>

Re: cmsg newgroup alt.sex.fetish.bool (was Re: [PATCH] arch: all: include: asm: bitops: Use bool instead of int for all bit test functions)

2016-09-03 Thread Chen Gang
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 >>

Re: cmsg newgroup alt.sex.fetish.bool (was Re: [PATCH] arch: all: include: asm: bitops: Use bool instead of int for all bit test functions)

2016-09-02 Thread Vineet Gupta
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

Re: cmsg newgroup alt.sex.fetish.bool (was Re: [PATCH] arch: all: include: asm: bitops: Use bool instead of int for all bit test functions)

2016-09-02 Thread Vineet Gupta
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

Re: cmsg newgroup alt.sex.fetish.bool (was Re: [PATCH] arch: all: include: asm: bitops: Use bool instead of int for all bit test functions)

2016-09-02 Thread Chen Gang
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

Re: cmsg newgroup alt.sex.fetish.bool (was Re: [PATCH] arch: all: include: asm: bitops: Use bool instead of int for all bit test functions)

2016-09-02 Thread Chen Gang
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

cmsg newgroup alt.sex.fetish.bool (was Re: [PATCH] arch: all: include: asm: bitops: Use bool instead of int for all bit test functions)

2016-09-01 Thread Al Viro
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

cmsg newgroup alt.sex.fetish.bool (was Re: [PATCH] arch: all: include: asm: bitops: Use bool instead of int for all bit test functions)

2016-09-01 Thread Al Viro
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