Re: Patch to remove undefined C code

[Alexander Viro]

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/