On Mon, 2020-06-08 at 00:40 +0000, Yann Collet wrote:
> Hi Vasily
>
>
> If I do understand the discussion, the question is about usage of `&` instead
> of `&&`,
> and the speculation that it might be an error.
>
> It's not an error. Unfortunately, explaining the reasoning behind this
> decision is a bit long.
Likely better to add a comment around the use so that
another patch like this doesn't get submitted again.
Perhaps something like:
---
lib/lz4/lz4_decompress.c | 3 +++
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
diff --git a/lib/lz4/lz4_decompress.c b/lib/lz4/lz4_decompress.c
index 0c9d3ad17e0f..5371dab6b481 100644
--- a/lib/lz4/lz4_decompress.c
+++ b/lib/lz4/lz4_decompress.c
@@ -141,6 +141,9 @@ static FORCE_INLINE int LZ4_decompress_generic(
* space in the output for those 18 bytes earlier, upon
* entering the shortcut (in other words, there is a
* combined check for both stages).
+ *
+ * The & in the likely() below is intentionally not && so that
+ * some compilers can produce better parallelized runtime code
*/
if ((endOnInput ? length != RUN_MASK : length <= 8)
/*
