On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 11:57 PM, Diego Novillo <dnovi...@google.com> wrote: > On 2012-10-11 16:25 , Lawrence Crowl wrote: >> >> On 10/11/12, Diego Novillo <dnovi...@google.com> wrote: >>> >>> On 2012-10-11 13:26 , Lawrence Crowl wrote: >>>> >>>> My only other concern was that the mapping between those function >>>> names and the tasks to be done sometimes seemed less than obvious. >>>> So, I proposed the name change. However, I think the current names >>>> are workable, assuming an acceptable solution to the above problem. >>> >>> >>> I would say, add both variants and make the empty ones drop the return >>> value. So, for instance, bitmap_ior returns a value, so make >>> bitmap_ior_cg drop it. >> >> >> That convention is opposite from what is used in sbitmap, where _cg >> indicates that it returns the bool. I think returning the value >> will be the less common case. > > > Sorry, I mixed the two up. I meant the version that makes sense.
What's the issue with always returning the changed status? bitmap operations (even more so sbitmap operations) are memory-bound, accumulating one more register isn't speed critial. Richard. > > Diego. >
