On 1/20/23 12:52 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Jeff Hostetler <git@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:static int ef_is_dropped(const FSEventStreamEventFlags ef) { - return (ef & kFSEventStreamEventFlagMustScanSubDirs || - ef & kFSEventStreamEventFlagKernelDropped || - ef & kFSEventStreamEventFlagUserDropped); + return (ef & (kFSEventStreamEventFlagMustScanSubDirs | + kFSEventStreamEventFlagKernelDropped | + kFSEventStreamEventFlagUserDropped)); }Technically, the returned value is slightly different, but the only caller is just checking for non-zero, so it doesn't matter. So this is fine.But is it worth the code churn and reviewer bandwidth? Don't we have better things to spend our time on? I would not be surprised if a smart enough compiler used the same transformartion as this patch does manually as an optimization. Then it matters more which one of the two is more readable by our developers. And the original matches how we humans would think, I would imagine. ef might have MustScanSubdirs bit, KernelDropped bit, or UserDropped bit and in these cases we want to say that ef is dropped. Arguably, the original is more readble, and it would be a good change to adopt if there is an upside, like the updated code resulting in markedly more efficient binary. So, this might be technically fine, but I am not enthused to see these kind of code churning patches with dubious upside. An optimization patch should be able to demonstrate its benefit with a solid benchmark, or at least a clear difference in generated code. In fact. Compiler explorer godbolt.org tells me that gcc 12 with -O2 compiles the following two functions into identical assembly. The !! prefix used in the second example is different from the postimage of what Seija posted, but this being a file-scope static function, I would expect the compiler to notice that the actual value would not matter to the callers, only the truth value, does. * Input * int one(unsigned int num) { return ((num & 01) || (num & 02) || (num & 04)); } int two(unsigned int num) { return !!((num) & (01|02|04)); } * Assembly * one(unsigned int): xor eax, eax and edi, 7 setne al ret two(unsigned int): xor eax, eax and edi, 7 setne al ret
agreed. i didn't think the change was really worth the bother and churn. personally, i prefer the conceptual clarity of the code the way I wrote it. and i was wondering if the compiler would generate the same result, but didn't take the time (read: was too lazy) to actually verify that. all i was intending to say was that it wasn't a wrong change. jeff
