Hi !
Well, although I usually don't like these endless coding-style threads, why
don't you simply use this common form ? :
return !!(foo & MASK);
I found that the compilers like it much and easily emit conditionnal set
instructions. Eg, on x86, this should be something like :
testl MASK, foo
setnz retcode
Cheers,
Willy
On Thu, Apr 24, 2003 at 01:15:39PM -0400, Timothy Miller wrote:
> >
> >
> >I meant return ((foo & MASK) && 1);
> >
> >Try it, you'll like it! No shifts, no jumps.
> >
> >
> >
>
> Looks sweet! If the compiler is smart, that is. I'll add that to my
> repetoire. I'll have to see what the asm output looks like.
-
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/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Apr 30 2003 - 22:00:17 EST