Josh Stone <[email protected]> writes: > On 12/12/2013 04:13 AM, Petr Machata wrote: >> Josh Stone <[email protected]> writes: >>> +static inline uint64_t >>> +__libdw_get_uleb128 (const unsigned char **addrp) >>> +{ >>> + uint64_t acc = 0; >>> + get_uleb128_step (acc, *addrp, 0); >>> + for (unsigned int i = 1; i < len_leb128(acc); ++i) >>> + get_uleb128_step (acc, *addrp, i); >> >> Is there a reason not to use for (i = 0; ...) instead of the pre-step >> followed by a for (i = 1; ...)? > > Ah, yes, I should explain that a little. I found that the code was > actually faster with the first step unrolled.
Ah, I think that's fine then, but needs a comment. Thanks, PM
