On Thu, 2016-01-07 at 20:56 +0100, SF Markus Elfring wrote: > > > Is it a bit more efficient to avoid a double check for the > > > variable "ret" at the end of the current implementation for the > > > discussed function? > > > > Before asking questions you could answer yourself, > > please look at object code produced by the compiler > > before and after your proposed changes. > > * Do any more source code reviewers wonder about the need > for such a double check? Given the feedback you've already received, it seems so. > * Which object code representations would you find representative > for a further constructive discussion around this > software component? Evidence of actual object code improvement when with compiled with optimizations. -- 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
