Yes, I think I was wrong and you are right. I did test again and now
it is clear.
On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 6:06 PM, Cong Ding wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 05, 2012 at 03:26:36PM +0800, Li, Zhen-Hua wrote:
>> Infact, your patch does remove an orl operation, but add a new "move"
>> operation.
>>
>> You can
On Wed, Dec 05, 2012 at 03:26:36PM +0800, Li, Zhen-Hua wrote:
> Infact, your patch does remove an orl operation, but add a new "move"
> operation.
>
> You can test such two functions:
> int func1(int rm1, int rm2){
> int i = 0;
> i |= rm1;
> i |= rm2;
> }
>
> and
>
> int
And if you use -O2 as gcc option, you may find it does nothing. They
are using the same assemble language.
On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 3:26 PM, Li, Zhen-Hua wrote:
> Infact, your patch does remove an orl operation, but add a new "move"
> operation.
>
> You can test such two functions:
> int func1(int
Infact, your patch does remove an orl operation, but add a new "move" operation.
You can test such two functions:
int func1(int rm1, int rm2){
int i = 0;
i |= rm1;
i |= rm2;
}
and
int func(int rm1, int rm2){
int i;
i = rm1;
i |= rm2;
}
Use gcc to
On Tuesday 04 December 2012 07:25 PM, Grant Likely wrote:
On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 11:44 AM, Santosh Shilimkar
wrote:
On Tuesday 04 December 2012 04:56 PM, Cong Ding wrote:
the initialization of variable ret is unnecessary, we can remove it while
save
one time "or" operation.
Signed-off-by: Co
On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 11:44 AM, Santosh Shilimkar
wrote:
> On Tuesday 04 December 2012 04:56 PM, Cong Ding wrote:
>>
>> the initialization of variable ret is unnecessary, we can remove it while
>> save
>> one time "or" operation.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Cong Ding
>> ---
>
> Looks ok.
> Acked-by: Sa
On Tuesday 04 December 2012 04:56 PM, Cong Ding wrote:
the initialization of variable ret is unnecessary, we can remove it while save
one time "or" operation.
Signed-off-by: Cong Ding
---
Looks ok.
Acked-by: Santosh Shilimkar
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-
7 matches
Mail list logo
