lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Nov]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [PATCH v2] clarify usage expectations for cnt32_to_63()
    On Mon, 10 Nov 2008, Andrew Morton wrote:

    > On Mon, 10 Nov 2008 18:15:32 -0500 (EST)
    > Nicolas Pitre <nico@cam.org> wrote:
    >
    > > On Mon, 10 Nov 2008, Andrew Morton wrote:
    > >
    > > > This references its second argument twice, which can cause correctness
    > > > or efficiency problems.
    > > >
    > > > There is no reason that this had to be implemented in cpp.
    > > > Implementing it in C will fix the above problem.
    > >
    > > No, it won't, for correctness and efficiency reasons.
    > >
    > > And I've explained why already.
    >
    > I'd be very surprised if you've really found a case where a macro is
    > faster than an inlined function. I don't think that has happened
    > before.

    That hasn't anything to do with "a macro is faster" at all. It's all
    about the order used to evaluate provided arguments. And the first one
    might be anything like a memory value, an IO operation, an expression,
    etc. An inline function would work correctly with pointers only and
    therefore totally break apart on x86 for example.


    Nicolas


    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2008-11-11 01:29    [W:0.041 / U:32.508 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site