* Wei Yang (richardw.y...@linux.intel.com) wrote:
> Since we will not operate on the next address pointed by out, it is not
> necessary to do addition on it.
>
> After removing the operation, the function size reduced 16/18 bytes.
For me with a -O3 it didn't make any difference - the compiler was
already smart enough to spot it, but it is correct.
Reviewed-by: Dr. David Alan Gilbert <dgilb...@redhat.com>
> Signed-off-by: Wei Yang <richardw.y...@linux.intel.com>
> ---
> util/cutils.c | 8 ++++----
> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/util/cutils.c b/util/cutils.c
> index 9aacc422ca..1933a68da5 100644
> --- a/util/cutils.c
> +++ b/util/cutils.c
> @@ -754,11 +754,11 @@ int uleb128_encode_small(uint8_t *out, uint32_t n)
> {
> g_assert(n <= 0x3fff);
> if (n < 0x80) {
> - *out++ = n;
> + *out = n;
> return 1;
> } else {
> *out++ = (n & 0x7f) | 0x80;
> - *out++ = n >> 7;
> + *out = n >> 7;
> return 2;
> }
> }
> @@ -766,7 +766,7 @@ int uleb128_encode_small(uint8_t *out, uint32_t n)
> int uleb128_decode_small(const uint8_t *in, uint32_t *n)
> {
> if (!(*in & 0x80)) {
> - *n = *in++;
> + *n = *in;
> return 1;
> } else {
> *n = *in++ & 0x7f;
> @@ -774,7 +774,7 @@ int uleb128_decode_small(const uint8_t *in, uint32_t *n)
> if (*in & 0x80) {
> return -1;
> }
> - *n |= *in++ << 7;
> + *n |= *in << 7;
> return 2;
> }
> }
> --
> 2.19.1
>
--
Dr. David Alan Gilbert / dgilb...@redhat.com / Manchester, UK
