On Tue, Oct 09, 2007 at 08:30:11PM +0200, Joerg Roedel wrote:Please don't let Oley bring you away from the right path. It is your job to write readable C code, and it's the compiler's job to transform this C code into efficient machine code. And non-ancient gcc versions are usually quite good in optimizing code. And saving code in a variable before using it might even result in the same assembler code. It is personal preference whether you use variables or not in this case (both seem to be equally readable) so you can do it any way you like, but don't try to guess what gcc might make out of it. We have problems with the size of the kernel image, but we need to solve them with the bigger knobs that have measurable effects, not by wasting our time on guessing how gcc might handle a single if. It's also a quite ill idea to think about whether gcc might produce a few bytes more or less code at the if when there's such a long printk() in the middle... cu Adrian -- "Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days. "Only a promise," Lao Er said. Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed -
| debian developer | Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3 |
| Greg KH | [GIT PATCH] driver core patches against 2.6.24 |
| H. Peter Anvin | Re: [PATCH] x86: Construct 32 bit boot time page tables in native format. |
| Christoph Lameter | Re: [RFC 00/15] x86_64: Optimize percpu accesses |
git: | |
| Christoph Hellwig | Re: [PATCH 06/32] IGET: Mark iget() and read_inode() as being obsolete [try #2] |
| Jarek Poplawski | Re: [PATCH] pkt_sched: Destroy gen estimators under rtnl_lock(). |
| Gerrit Renker | [PATCH 27/37] dccp: Integration of dynamic feature activation - part 2 (server side) |
| David Miller | [GIT]: Networking |
