On Sun, May 11, 2008 at 05:08:32PM +0100, Ricardo Martins wrote: > On Sun, 11 May 2008 20:43, Alexey Dobriyan wrote: > > On Sun, May 11, 2008 at 02:50:33PM +0200, Julia Lawall wrote: > > > A few more cases in the spirit of the patch "Trivial: Replacement of always > > > >0 ints with unsigned ints" submitted by Ricardo Martins <ricardo@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > And rationale for those would be ...? > > Acccording to the kernel-janitors TODO [1], Jeff Garzik suggested the following: > > 2) "unsigned int" is preferred to "int", it generates better asm code > on all platforms except sh5. This replacement needs to be done manually, > because often 'int' is required due to negative values -Exxx commonly > passed as error values. > > Since (most) loop counters such as "int i" are always either zero or a positive > number, they are perfect candidates for using unsigned int instead, imho. > It goes without saying, that each case must be considered separately in > case a negative value is indeed needed. > > [1] http://kernelnewbies.org/KernelJanitors/Todo So you've checked disassembly in both cases and saw it's better? -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kernel-janitors" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
