On Sun, Jul 06, 2008 at 12:54:58AM +0200, Javier Martín wrote: > El sáb, 05-07-2008 a las 17:30 -0400, Pavel Roskin escribió: > > They probably should be functions. We may want to sparse annotate GRUB > > one day, and then inline functions in the only way to go. > Hmm... you mean changing this > > #define grub_swap_bytes16(x) \ > ({ \ > grub_uint16_t _x = (x); \ > (grub_uint16_t) ((_x << 8) | (_x >> 8)); \ > }) > > ...for this > > inline grub_uint16_t grub_swap_bytes16(uint16_t x) > { > return (x << 8) | (x >> 8); > }
I know I get to be annoying about this, but which of these two (plus the non-inline version) would result in _smaller_ code? Function calls on i386-pc are cheap (because we use the regparm hack), so maybe it'd work better using normal functions. -- Robert Millan <GPLv2> I know my rights; I want my phone call! <DRM> What good is a phone call… if you are unable to speak? (as seen on /.) _______________________________________________ Grub-devel mailing list Grub-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/grub-devel