On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 14:13:57 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >On Mon, Feb 28, 2005 at 01:57:59PM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >> Please _don't_ apply this, but tell me what you think about it. > > >It's broken. 8) > > >> --- old/drivers/char/vt.c 2004-12-24 22:35:25.000000000 +0100 > >> +++ new/drivers/char/vt.c 2005-02-28 12:53:57.933256631 +0100 > >> @@ -1655,9 +1655,9 @@ > >> vc_state = ESnormal; > >> return; > >> case ESsquare: > >> - for(npar = 0 ; npar < NPAR ; npar++) > >> + for(npar = NPAR-1; npar < NPAR; npar--) > > >How many times do you want this for loop to run? > > NPAR times :-). As I stated, npar is unsigned. >
for (npar = NPAR - 1; npar >= 0; npar--) would be more readable and may be even faster on a dumb compiler than your variant. Still, I'd have compiler worry about such micro-optimizations. -- Dmitry - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
