Re: [PATCH] only use 48-bit lba when necessary

From: Chuck Ebbert (76306.1226@compuserve.com)
Date: Thu Apr 17 2003 - 20:34:37 EST

Next message: David Mosberger: "USB deadlock in v2.5.67"
Previous message: Paul Mackerras: "Re: [Ltp-coverage] 2.5.67-gcov and 2.4.20-gcov"
Next in thread: Matt Mackall: "Re: [PATCH] only use 48-bit lba when necessary"
Reply: Matt Mackall: "Re: [PATCH] only use 48-bit lba when necessary"
Reply: Timothy Miller: "Re: [PATCH] only use 48-bit lba when necessary"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

Matt Mackall wrote:

>FYI, GCC as of 3.2.3 doesn't yet reduce the if(...) form to branchless
>code but the & and && versions come out the same with -O2.

The operands of & can be evaluated in any order, while && requires
left-to-right and does not evaluate the right operand if the left one
is false. Only the simplest cases could possibly generate the same
code.

--
 Chuck
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Next message: David Mosberger: "USB deadlock in v2.5.67"
Previous message: Paul Mackerras: "Re: [Ltp-coverage] 2.5.67-gcov and 2.4.20-gcov"
Next in thread: Matt Mackall: "Re: [PATCH] only use 48-bit lba when necessary"
Reply: Matt Mackall: "Re: [PATCH] only use 48-bit lba when necessary"
Reply: Timothy Miller: "Re: [PATCH] only use 48-bit lba when necessary"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Apr 23 2003 - 22:00:23 EST