From: Chase V. <cha...@cl...> - 2006-06-14 08:10:05
|
On Tuesday 13 June 2006 20:11, Matt Helsley wrote: > On Tue, 2006-06-13 at 19:43 -0500, Chase Venters wrote: > > On Tuesday 13 June 2006 18:54, Matt Helsley wrote: > > > + WARN_ON((which_id != PROC_EVENT_UID) && (which_id != > > > PROC_EVENT_GID)); } > > > > How about WARN_ON(!(which_id & (PROC_EVENT_UID | PROC_EVENT_GID))) to > > save a cmp? > > > > Thanks, > > Chase > > I think the compiler is capable of making such optimizations. I also > think what I have now is clearer to anyone skimming the code. Can the compiler test that (which_id != PROC_EVENT_UID) && (which_id != PROC_EVENT_GID) merely by masking? Since they're bits, one mask testing both could technically match both (true result), which would not happen in the != case (false result). It is a small point though. > Cheers, > -Matt Helsley Thanks, Chase |