On Fri, Feb 11, 2022 at 06:25:17PM +0200, Jani Nikula wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Feb 2022, Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 11, 2022 at 02:05:56PM +0200, Jani Nikula wrote:
> >> On Fri, 11 Feb 2022, Thomas Zimmermann <tzimmermann@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> > Am 11.02.22 um 12:12 schrieb Andy Shevchenko:
> >> >> On Fri, Feb 11, 2022 at 11:40:13AM +0100, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:
> >> >>> On 2/11/22 11:28, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> >> >>>> On Fri, Feb 11, 2022 at 10:19:22AM +0100, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:
> >
> > ...
> >
> >> >>>>> +static void drm_fb_xrgb8888_to_gray8_line(u8 *dst, const u32 *src, unsigned int pixels)
> >> >>>>> +{
> >> >>>>> + unsigned int x;
> >> >>>>> +
> >> >>>>> + for (x = 0; x < pixels; x++) {
> >> >>>>> + u8 r = (*src & 0x00ff0000) >> 16;
> >> >>>>> + u8 g = (*src & 0x0000ff00) >> 8;
> >> >>>>> + u8 b = *src & 0x000000ff;
> >> >>>>> +
> >> >>>>> + /* ITU BT.601: Y = 0.299 R + 0.587 G + 0.114 B */
> >> >>>>> + *dst++ = (3 * r + 6 * g + b) / 10;
> >> >>>>> + src++;
> >> >>>>> + }
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> Can be done as
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> while (pixels--) {
> >> >>>> ...
> >> >>>> }
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> or
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> do {
> >> >>>> ...
> >> >>>> } while (--pixels);
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>> I don't see why a while loop would be an improvement here TBH.
> >> >>
> >> >> Less letters to parse when reading the code.
> >> >
> >> > It's a simple refactoring of code that has worked well so far. Let's
> >> > leave it as-is for now.
> >>
> >> IMO *always* prefer a for loop over while or do-while.
> >>
> >> The for (i = 0; i < N; i++) is such a strong paradigm in C. You
> >> instantly know how many times you're going to loop, at a glance. Not so
> >> with with the alternatives, which should be used sparingly.
> >
> > while () {} _is_ a paradigm, for-loop is syntax sugar on top of it.
>
> And while() is just syntax sugar for goto. :p
>
> The for loop written as for (i = 0; i < N; i++) is hands down the most
> obvious counting loop pattern there is in C.
>
> >> And yes, the do-while suggested above is buggy, and you actually need to
> >> stop and think to see why.
> >
> > It depends if pixels can be 0 or not and if it's not, then does it contain last
> > or number.
> >
> > The do {} while (--pixels); might be buggy iff pixels may be 0.
>
> Yeah. And how long does it take to figure that out?
Okay, I made a mistake to drop the explanation. So, I (mistakenly) assumed
that people know this difference between post-decrement and pre-decrement
(note, while-loop here is not what is problematic).
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
