Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 05 Feb 2009 11:26:56 -0800 | From | Jeremy Fitzhardinge <> | Subject | Re: pud_bad vs pud_bad |
| |
Ingo Molnar wrote: > But the 32-bit check does the exact same thing but via a single binary > operation: it checks whether any bits outside of those bits are zero - just > via a simpler test that compiles to more compact code. > > So i'd go with the 32-bit version. (unless there are some sign-extension > complications i'm missing - but i think we got rid of those already.)
OK, fair enough. I wouldn't be surprised if gcc does that transform anyway, but we may as well be consistent about it.
J
| |