[lwip-devel] [task #6827] etharp could need some tuning

[Jonathan Larmour]

Follow-up Comment #39, task #6827 (project lwip):

It would be equivalent to:
 for (k=6;k>0;k--)
and (unless the compiler optimises it by itself, which it might), that is
typically faster than:
for (k = 0; k < 6; k++) { 

because it tends to be faster on processors to compare against 0, than
against a given constant. A constant adds to register pressure and has to be
maintained in a register, or saved/restored in memory at the end of each loop
for the check. Comparison against 0 can usually be done directly in a single
instruction (or if using CISC where both would be single instruction, it
would take fewer cycles).

Making your loops have a comparison against 0 does count as one of the more
obscure optimisations you can do though, I agree.


    _______________________________________________________

Reply to this item at:

  <http://savannah.nongnu.org/task/?6827>

_______________________________________________
  Message sent via/by Savannah
  http://savannah.nongnu.org/