[lkml]   [2003]   [Jan]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: any chance of 2.6.0-test*?
Am Sonntag, 12. Januar 2003 23:21 schrieb Rob Wilkens:
> On Sun, 2003-01-12 at 16:59, Adam Kropelin wrote:
> > Congratulations. You've possibly increased the speed of an error path by
> > an infintessimal amount at the expense of increasing the size of kernel
> > image and making the code harder to read and maintain. (I say "possibly"
> > since with caching effects you may have actually slowed the code down.)
> Hey, if the compiler does it's job right, I increased the speed of
> something in the kernel. And, as a kernel newbie, I'm proud of that. I
> also did it in under 12 minutes (from time stamp of message received to
> time stamp of message sent after code compiled and diff'd).

Nope you didn't.
Any compiler that can move outline code like
if (con) {
return err;
can easily simplify
if (con)
goto err_out;
into a single branch. Still you have enlarged the kernel a bit.
With the same number of jumps, as a rule of thumb, the smaller
code is faster.


To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:32    [W:0.103 / U:0.444 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site