On Tuesday, August 31, 2010 3:53:54 pm Dimitry Andric wrote: > On 2010-08-31 21:37, John Baldwin wrote: > >> - return *(p + 0x401) * 128 * 1024 + *(u_int16_t *)(p + 0x594) * 1024 * 1024; > >> + return *p * 128 * 1024 + *(u_int16_t *)(p + (0x594 - 0x401)) * 1024 * 1024; > >> } > > > > Perhaps replace '(p + 0x594 - 0x401)' with just 'PTOV(0x594)'? > > > > I would actually find it cleaner to remove 'p' altogether perhaps: > > > > return (*(u_char *)PTOV(0x401) * 128 * 1024 + > > *(uint16_t *)PTOV(0x594) * 1024 * 1024); > > Yes, I attempted this variation at first, but it made the code bigger, > which I wanted to avoid: it went from "11 bytes available" to "7 bytes" > available. > > I tried several semantically equivalent permutations of the expression, > and the one I committed gave no increase or decrease in code size. > > Apparently the code size produced by gcc is very sensitive to even > minimal changes. For example, a lot of the PTOV() pointer dereferences > should really be qualified with 'volatile', but that even causes boot2 > to become too big to fit! > > If the 4 extra bytes are no problem, then I would be glad to change it > to the above expression, though. It is certainly clearer. :)
I would go with cleaner as long as it fits. I would only resort to weird tricks such as the 'p' one used previously if they are actually needed. -- John Baldwin _______________________________________________ svn-src-head@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/svn-src-head To unsubscribe, send any mail to "svn-src-head-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
