Alexander Kellett wrote: [...] > As much as I absolutely love the utility of this > piece of code you really do have to admit that it > _is_ rather difficult to understand :) > It is hard for everybody - until we get used to it. Then it is just another normal thing. :-) > Is it so flawed of me to expect that some day this > code could be rewritten in an extremely clean > fashion and compilers made to do the work that > was put in to make this fast? This is not flawed - but we actually need that compiler to exist, and become _common_ before replacing hand-optimizations with clean code. Feel free to join the gcc team and make the world better... Helge Hafting - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo _at_ vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
References:
- Re: any chance of 2.6.0-test*?Linus Torvalds
- Re: any chance of 2.6.0-test*?Rob Wilkens
- Re: any chance of 2.6.0-test*? -> goto exampleWilly Tarreau
- Re: any chance of 2.6.0-test*? -> goto exampleRob Wilkens
- Re: any chance of 2.6.0-test*? -> goto exampleWilly Tarreau
- Re: any chance of 2.6.0-test*? -> goto exampleAlexander Kellett
- Prev by Date: Re: [PATCH] don't create regular files in devfs (fwd)
- Next by Date: Re: NUMA scheduler 2nd approach
- Previous by thread: Re: any chance of 2.6.0-test*? -> goto example
- Next by thread: Coding style - (Was Re: any chance of 2.6.0-test*?)
- Indexes:[Main][Thread]