Re: [PATCH v2] clarify usage expectations for cnt32_to_63()

[Nicolas Pitre]

On Mon, 10 Nov 2008, Andrew Morton wrote:

> On Mon, 10 Nov 2008 18:15:32 -0500 (EST)
> Nicolas Pitre <nico@xxxxxxx> 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
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/