Hehe and I almost thought about changing to (x & 0x3f) instead of (x % 64) but decided to skip that one =)
The more you know! 2013/7/15 Andreas Krennmair <a...@synflood.at> > * sin <s...@2f30.org> [2013-07-15 12:20]: > > I'd break this patch into multiple patches. The change from *= 8 to <<= 3 >> doesn't make sense. Maybe it did in the 80s but not anymore. >> > > Just for the sake of completeness: there's a rather interesting > presentation from a few years ago that explains in detail how clever > compilers really are with their optimizations: http://www.fefe.de/source-* > *code-optimization.pdf <http://www.fefe.de/source-code-optimization.pdf> > > Andreas > >
