On 10/23/2010 4:28 PM, Jeff Trawick wrote: > > I dunno about any load-bit instructions... Seems like the bit field > always has an extra step compared with the int for the platforms where > I have a laughable recollection of assembly. > > But these bit fields are only for merging logic, right? Hardly a > performance concern, even with htaccess compared with stat and all > that.
It is not simply a bit mask. It's a bit mask, shift and shift extension, since this is an int bitfield and not unsigned. Two values, 0 and -1. Great for fields that will be accessed once per request. Horrid performance for per-dir merging. Even to Jim's comment, an unsigned char would outperform a signed char, which has to be sign-extended into a full int.
