[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC] find_next_bit optimizations
From: |
Peter Maydell |
Subject: |
Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC] find_next_bit optimizations |
Date: |
Mon, 11 Mar 2013 14:04:49 +0000 |
On 11 March 2013 13:44, Peter Lieven <address@hidden> wrote:
> @@ -24,12 +24,13 @@ unsigned long find_next_bit(const unsigned long *addr,
> unsigned long size,
> const unsigned long *p = addr + BITOP_WORD(offset);
> unsigned long result = offset & ~(BITS_PER_LONG-1);
> unsigned long tmp;
> + unsigned long d0,d1,d2,d3;
>
> if (offset >= size) {
> return size;
> }
> size -= result;
> - offset %= BITS_PER_LONG;
> + offset &= (BITS_PER_LONG-1);
This change at least is unnecessary -- I just checked, and gcc
is already smart enough to turn the % operation into a logical
and. The generated object files are identical.
-- PMM
- [Qemu-devel] [RFC] find_next_bit optimizations, Peter Lieven, 2013/03/11
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC] find_next_bit optimizations,
Peter Maydell <=
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC] find_next_bit optimizations, Paolo Bonzini, 2013/03/11
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC] find_next_bit optimizations, Peter Lieven, 2013/03/11
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC] find_next_bit optimizations, Peter Lieven, 2013/03/11
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC] find_next_bit optimizations, Paolo Bonzini, 2013/03/11
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC] find_next_bit optimizations, Peter Lieven, 2013/03/11
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC] find_next_bit optimizations, Paolo Bonzini, 2013/03/11
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC] find_next_bit optimizations, Peter Lieven, 2013/03/11
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC] find_next_bit optimizations, Paolo Bonzini, 2013/03/11
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC] find_next_bit optimizations, ronnie sahlberg, 2013/03/11
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC] find_next_bit optimizations, Paolo Bonzini, 2013/03/11