On Tue, Jun 22, 2021 at 10:19 AM David Laight <David.Laight@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> From: Christoph Hellwig
> > Sent: 21 June 2021 15:27
> ...
> > > + for (next = s.ulong[0]; count >= bytes_long + mask; count -= bytes_long) {
> >
> > Please avoid the pointlessly overlong line. And (just as a matter of
> > personal preference) I find for loop that don't actually use a single
> > iterator rather confusing. Wjy not simply:
> >
> > next = s.ulong[0];
> > while (count >= bytes_long + mask) {
> > ...
> > count -= bytes_long;
> > }
>
> My fist attack on long 'for' statements is just to move the
> initialisation to the previous line.
> Then make sure there is nothing in the comparison that needs
> to be calculated every iteration.
> I suspect you can subtract 'mask' from 'count'.
> Giving:
> count -= mask;
> next = s.ulong[0];
> for (;; count > bytes_long; count -= bytes_long) {
>
This way we'll lose the remainder, as count is used at the end to copy
the leftover.
Anyway, both bytes_long and mask are constant, I doubt they get summed
at every cycle.
> Next is to shorten the variable names!
>
> David
>
--
per aspera ad upstream
