On Sat, Mar 25, 2017 at 12:47 AM, Christopher Li <sparse@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 1:11 AM, Luc Van Oostenryck
> <luc.vanoostenryck@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> My preference, if performance mattered here, would be to play
>> with the bits of the opcode, something like:
>> #define OP_SET__EQUAL (1 << ...)
>> #define OP_SET__SIGNED (1 << ...)
>> #define OP_SET__LTHAN ...
>> #define OP_SET__GTHAN ...
>>
>> ...
>>
>> int swap_compare_opcode(opcode) { return opcode ^= (OP_SET__LTHAN|OP_SET__GTHAN); }
>
> That is ugly. I don't want that.
>
> I cook up an untested patch include here to show what I have in mind.
> It should be very close to your case statement way of writing it. You are
> welcome to change it.
I already resent the serie, maybe 30 minutes ago or so.
but without this ugly thing you don't want.
-- Luc
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-sparse" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
