On Mon, Feb 14, 2022 at 11:17:11AM +0200, Pekka Paalanen wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Feb 2022 19:27:12 +0200
> Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevche...@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 11, 2022 at 06:25:17PM +0200, Jani Nikula wrote:
> > > On Fri, 11 Feb 2022, Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevche...@linux.intel.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Feb 11, 2022 at 02:05:56PM +0200, Jani Nikula wrote:
> > > >> On Fri, 11 Feb 2022, Thomas Zimmermann <tzimmerm...@suse.de> wrote:
> > > >> > Am 11.02.22 um 12:12 schrieb Andy Shevchenko:
> > > >> >> On Fri, Feb 11, 2022 at 11:40:13AM +0100, Javier Martinez Canillas
> > > >> >> wrote:
> > > >> >>> On 2/11/22 11:28, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > >> >>>> On Fri, Feb 11, 2022 at 10:19:22AM +0100, Javier Martinez
> > > >> >>>> Canillas wrote:
...
> > > >> >>>>> +static void drm_fb_xrgb8888_to_gray8_line(u8 *dst, const u32
> > > >> >>>>> *src, unsigned int pixels)
> > > >> >>>>> +{
> > > >> >>>>> + unsigned int x;
> > > >> >>>>> +
> > > >> >>>>> + for (x = 0; x < pixels; x++) {
> > > >> >>>>> + u8 r = (*src & 0x00ff0000) >> 16;
> > > >> >>>>> + u8 g = (*src & 0x0000ff00) >> 8;
> > > >> >>>>> + u8 b = *src & 0x000000ff;
> > > >> >>>>> +
> > > >> >>>>> + /* ITU BT.601: Y = 0.299 R + 0.587 G + 0.114 B
> > > >> >>>>> */
> > > >> >>>>> + *dst++ = (3 * r + 6 * g + b) / 10;
> > > >> >>>>> + src++;
> > > >> >>>>> + }
> > > >> >>>>
> > > >> >>>> Can be done as
> > > >> >>>>
> > > >> >>>> while (pixels--) {
> > > >> >>>> ...
> > > >> >>>> }
> > > >> >>>>
> > > >> >>>> or
> > > >> >>>>
> > > >> >>>> do {
> > > >> >>>> ...
> > > >> >>>> } while (--pixels);
> > > >> >>>>
> > > >> >>>
> > > >> >>> I don't see why a while loop would be an improvement here TBH.
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> Less letters to parse when reading the code.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > It's a simple refactoring of code that has worked well so far. Let's
> > > >> > leave it as-is for now.
> > > >>
> > > >> IMO *always* prefer a for loop over while or do-while.
> > > >>
> > > >> The for (i = 0; i < N; i++) is such a strong paradigm in C. You
> > > >> instantly know how many times you're going to loop, at a glance. Not so
> > > >> with with the alternatives, which should be used sparingly.
> > > >
> > > > while () {} _is_ a paradigm, for-loop is syntax sugar on top of it.
> > >
> > > And while() is just syntax sugar for goto. :p
> > >
> > > The for loop written as for (i = 0; i < N; i++) is hands down the most
> > > obvious counting loop pattern there is in C.
> > >
> > > >> And yes, the do-while suggested above is buggy, and you actually need
> > > >> to
> > > >> stop and think to see why.
> > > >
> > > > It depends if pixels can be 0 or not and if it's not, then does it
> > > > contain last
> > > > or number.
> > > >
> > > > The do {} while (--pixels); might be buggy iff pixels may be 0.
> > >
> > > Yeah. And how long does it take to figure that out?
> >
> > Okay, I made a mistake to drop the explanation. So, I (mistakenly) assumed
> > that people know this difference between post-decrement and pre-decrement
> > (note, while-loop here is not what is problematic).
>
> That was not the question.
>
> The question was, how long does it take to figure out if pixels can or
> cannot be zero?
To me these patterns, while() {} and do {} while(), while being shorter,
also give a hint. So if one is familiar with C, the do {} while (--foo)
_gives a hint_ while being shorter. It requires _less_ brain power to get
this.
But I assume my brain is unique and not working as million of others.
> Code is styled for humans other than the author, not for compilers.
>
> Having to stop to think about the difference between post- and
> pre-decrement to figure out when the while-loop runs does take me a few
> more brain cycles to understand, even though I know the rules very well.
>
> I would call that brain cycle optimization, and leave the CPU cycle
> optimization for the compiler in these cases.
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
