From owner-cvs-src@FreeBSD.ORG  Wed Oct 31 22:33:49 2007
Return-Path: <owner-cvs-src@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: cvs-src@FreeBSD.ORG
Received: by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix, from userid 1033)
	id 34E3916A46B; Wed, 31 Oct 2007 22:33:49 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 22:33:49 +0000
From: Alexey Dokuchaev <danfe@FreeBSD.org>
To: Andrey Chernov <ache@nagual.pp.ru>,
	Juli Mallett <juli@clockworksquid.com>, src-committers@FreeBSD.ORG,
	cvs-src@FreeBSD.ORG, cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG
Message-ID: <20071031223349.GA552@FreeBSD.org>
References: <200710272232.l9RMWSbK072082@repoman.freebsd.org>
	<20071030200331.GA29309@toxic.magnesium.net>
	<20071031215526.GC89932@nagual.pp.ru>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20071031215526.GC89932@nagual.pp.ru>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i
Cc: 
Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/include _ctype.h
X-BeenThere: cvs-src@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: CVS commit messages for the src tree <cvs-src.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-src>,
	<mailto:cvs-src-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/cvs-src>
List-Post: <mailto:cvs-src@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:cvs-src-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-src>,
	<mailto:cvs-src-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 22:33:49 -0000

On Thu, Nov 01, 2007 at 12:55:26AM +0300, Andrey Chernov wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 30, 2007 at 10:03:31AM -1000, Juli Mallett wrote:
> > * "Andrey A. Chernov" <ache@FreeBSD.org> [ 2007-10-27 ]
> > 	[ cvs commit: src/include _ctype.h ]
> > > ache        2007-10-27 22:32:28 UTC
> > > 
> > >   FreeBSD src repository
> > > 
> > >   Modified files:
> > >     include              _ctype.h 
> > >   Log:
> > >   Micro-optimization of prev. commit, change
> > >   (_c < 0 || _c >= 128) to (_c & ~0x7F)
> > 
> > Isn't that a non-optimization in code and a minor pessimization of readability?
> > Maybe I'm getting rusty, but those seem to result in nearly identical code on
> > i386 with a relatively modern GCC.  Did you look at the compiler output for this
> > optimization?  Is there a specific expensive instruction you're trying to avoid?
> > For such thoroughyl bit-aligned range checks, you shouldn't even get a branch
> > for the former case.  Is there a platform other than i386 I should look at where
> > the previous expression is more clearly pessimized?  Or a different compiler
> > than GCC?
> 
> For ones who doubts there two tests compiled with -O2. As you may see the 
> result is almost identical (andl vs cmpl):

Q.E.D.  How about to restore original, more reader-friendly version then?

./danfe