[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: sort --random-sort
From: |
Andreas Schwab |
Subject: |
Re: sort --random-sort |
Date: |
Thu, 01 Dec 2005 11:24:01 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.110003 (No Gnus v0.3) Emacs/22.0.50 (gnu/linux) |
Frederik Eaton <address@hidden> writes:
> +/* This index operation is more efficient on many processors */
> +#define ind(mm, x) \
> + (* (uint32_t *) ((char *) (mm) \
> + + ((x) & (ISAAC_WORDS - 1) * sizeof (uint32_t))))
A compiler that cannot create identical code when using the following
definition is not worth being called an optimizing compiler. Broken
compilers should be an excuse for obfuscation.
#define ind(mm, x) ((mm)[(x) & (ISAAC_WORDS - 1)])
Andreas.
--
Andreas Schwab, SuSE Labs, address@hidden
SuSE Linux Products GmbH, Maxfeldstraße 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany
PGP key fingerprint = 58CA 54C7 6D53 942B 1756 01D3 44D5 214B 8276 4ED5
"And now for something completely different."
Re: sort --random-sort, Eric Blake, 2005/12/10