On Mon, 16 Oct 2000, Mike Castle wrote: > On Mon, Oct 16, 2000 at 04:47:09PM -0400, Alexander Viro wrote: > > tmp = *p++; > > *q = f(tmp, *p++); > > return p; > > > > is equivalent to more idiomatic > > > > *q = f(p[0], p[1]); > > return p+2; > > > Which gets better assembler out of various versions of gcc? On which platform? If it would be VAX - sure, autoincrement rocks, but for something like x86 I would expect the second form to do better. Besides, it's more readable and is harder to fsck up when you are modifying the code. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
- Re: Patch to remove undefined C code Bernd Schmidt
- Re: Patch to remove undefined C code Horst von Brand
- Re: Patch to remove undefined C code Mark Montague
- Re: Patch to remove undefined C code Bill Wendling
- Re: Patch to remove undefined C code Horst von Brand
- Re: Patch to remove undefined C code Bernd Schmidt
- Patch to remove undefined C code Jonathan George
- Re: Patch to remove undefined C code Ben Pfaff
- Re: Patch to remove undefined C code Alexander Viro
- Re: Patch to remove undefined C code Mike Castle
- RE: Patch to remove undefined C code Alexander Viro
- RE: Patch to remove undefined C code Jonathan George
- Re: Patch to remove undefined C code Ben Pfaff
- Re: Patch to remove undefined C code Matti Aarnio
- Re: Patch to remove undefined C code Ben Pfaff
- Re: Patch to remove undefined C code Peter Samuelson
- Re: Patch to remove undefined C co... Tom Leete
- Re: Patch to remove undefined ... Bill Wendling
- Re: Patch to remove undefined ... Tom Leete
- Re: Patch to remove undefined C co... Richard Henderson
- Re: Patch to remove undefined C co... Jeff Epler