Re: any chance of 2.6.0-test*?
Oliver Neukum (oliver@neukum.name)
Mon, 13 Jan 2003 00:31:24 +0100
Am Montag, 13. Januar 2003 00:11 schrieb Rob Wilkens:
> On Sun, 2003-01-12 at 17:52, Aaron Lehmann wrote:
> > On Sun, Jan 12, 2003 at 05:34:58PM -0500, Rob Wilkens wrote:
> > > You're wrong. You wouldn't have to jump over them any more than you
> > > have to jump over the "goto" statement.
> >
> > The goto is a conditional jump. You propose replacing it with a
> > conditional jump past the error handling code predicated on the
> > opposite condition. Where's the improvement?
>
> The goto is absolutely not a conditional jump. The if that precedes it
> is conditional. The goto is not. The if is already there.
Oh, well.
Apologies first, my assembler is rusty.
if (a == NULL)
goto err_out;
bad compiler ->
tst $D0 ; evaluate a == NULL
bne L1 ; this is the if
bra err_out ; this is the goto
L1:
good compiler ->
tst $D0
beq err_out ; obvious optimisation
Oliver
-
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/