![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
Andi Kleen wrote: > On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 22:57:43 -0800 > Alex Pankratov <ap@swapped.cc> wrote: > > >>Ugh, yeah, I thought about this. However my understand was that >>since hlist_null is statically allocated variable, its address >>will be a known constant at a link time (whether it's a static >>link or dynamic/run-time link - btw, excuse my lack of proper >>terminology here). So comparing something to &null would be >>equivalent to comparing to the constant and not require an >>extra register. > > > Hmm, you're right. Apparently I was still thinking about the bad > code generated by the standard list_heads. > A quick note about standard lists then - circular double-linked lists are normally described in textbooks as a clever trick allowing to avoid if's in insert() and delete(). Given what you have noted about CMP speed above, I wonder if simple 0-terminated lists would be something to consider for lower-end i386. Alex - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ | ||||||||||||
| Last update: 2005-03-22 14:00 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||