Hello, > Bruno Haible <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Jim Meyering wrote: > > > >>> Some of the changes (& => &&) are unconditional improvements, imho. > > > > I disagree. The & => && change inserts a conditional branch into the control > > flow, with the potential to save a single memory access. I count ca. 2 CPU > > cycles for a memory access and ca. 8 CPU cycles for a conditional jump, > > therefore I would say that the change slows down the program a bit.
For what little it's worth, this code cycle argument does not take into account the optimization features of recent GCC versions AFAIK. Cheers, Ralf
