Marcus Meissner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> I think even "tiny" is an exaggeration. Gcc has been capable of doing
>> this for years and years. I'd be surprised if you could find a compiler
>> that could not, and still compile wine satisfactory.
>
> I guess such changes are acceptable if it make
On Wed, Oct 20, 2004 at 04:13:07PM +0200, Rein Klazes wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 22:29:35 +0900, you wrote:
>
> > > From the C point of view these bit logics are identical. The compiler
> > > finds that out easy.
> >
> > Yes, I know. That's why the optimizations are "tiny". I believe that
> > t
On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 22:29:35 +0900, you wrote:
> > From the C point of view these bit logics are identical. The compiler
> > finds that out easy.
>
> Yes, I know. That's why the optimizations are "tiny". I believe that
> the code itself becomes more readable with my changes and makes it
> not dep
"Rein Klazes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> From the C point of view these bit logics are identical. The compiler
> finds that out easy.
Yes, I know. That's why the optimizations are "tiny". I believe that
the code itself becomes more readable with my changes and makes it
not depend on the optimiz
On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 19:48:05 +0900, you wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Changelog:
> Dmitry Timoshkov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Tiny optimizations of bit testing operations.
Testing with gcc 3.3.5:
> -BOOL min_or_max_box = (wndPtr-&
