On Wed, 4 Jun 2014, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > Hi Julia, > > On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 1:00 PM, Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > OK, thanks. I was only looking at the C code. > > > > But the C code contains a loop that is followed by: > > > > if (!size) > > return result; > > tmp = *p; > > > > found_first: > > tmp |= ~0UL << size; > > if (tmp == ~0UL) /* Are any bits zero? */ > > return result + size; /* Nope. */ > > > > In the first return, it would seem that result == size. Could the second > > one be changed to just return size? It should not hurt performance. > > "size" may have been changed between function entry and this line. > So you have to store it in a temporary. Sorry, after reflection it seems that indeed size + result is always the original size, so it is actually all of the code that uses >= that is doing something unnecessary. == for the failure test is fine. julia _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
