Re: [PATCH] consolidate all within() implementations

[Peter 1 Oberparleiter]

Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@xxxxxxxxx> wrote on 21.05.2008 12:48:52:

> On Wed, 2008-05-21 at 12:33 +0200, Peter 1 Oberparleiter wrote:
> > Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@xxxxxxxxx> wrote on 21.05.2008 12:04:26:

> peter@lappy:~/tmp$ gcc -S -Os cmp*.c
> peter@lappy:~/tmp$ ls -la cmp*.o
> -rw-r--r-- 1 peter peter 752 2008-05-21 12:43 cmp2.o
> -rw-r--r-- 1 peter peter 743 2008-05-21 12:43 cmp.o

Yeah, but!

[oberpar@local cmp]$ gcc -c -O2 cmp*.c
[oberpar@local cmp]$ ls -la cmp*.o
-rw-r--r-- 1 oberpar oberpar 1352 May 21 15:40 cmp2.o
-rw-r--r-- 1 oberpar oberpar 1408 May 21 15:40 cmp.o

:)

> Also look at the .s output and notice mine doesn't have any additional
> branches ;-)

It really boils down to the question whether you want to trade
a bit of obviousness for a bit of efficiency/clever programming.
I vote for keeping the former.

> > > static inline int
> > > addr_within(const void *add, const void *start, const void *end)
> > > {
> > >    return addr_within_len(addr, start, 
> > >          (unsigned long)end - (unsigned long)start);
> > > }
> > 
> > For empty ranges (start > end), this produces different (less 
expected)
> > results than the previous version.
> 
> agreed, do we care about those?

Why not plan for the unexpected when it comes at little cost?


Regards,
  Peter
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/