On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 15:13:05 +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 21/03/2015 07:25, Emilio G. Cota wrote:
> > Note that this test
> > if (b & ((1 << len) - 1))
> > can be simplified to
> > if (b & 1)
> > , since we know that iff the first bit of a tb is set,
> > all other bits from that tb
On 21/03/2015 07:25, Emilio G. Cota wrote:
> Note that this test
> if (b & ((1 << len) - 1))
> can be simplified to
> if (b & 1)
> , since we know that iff the first bit of a tb is set,
> all other bits from that tb are set too.
I don't think this optimization is valid, unfortunately
On 03/04/2015 02:08, Emilio G. Cota wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 21, 2015 at 02:25:42 -0400, Emilio G. Cota wrote:
>> Note that this test
>> if (b & ((1 << len) - 1))
>> can be simplified to
>> if (b & 1)
>> , since we know that iff the first bit of a tb is set,
>> all other bits from that tb a
On Sat, Mar 21, 2015 at 02:25:42 -0400, Emilio G. Cota wrote:
> Note that this test
> if (b & ((1 << len) - 1))
> can be simplified to
> if (b & 1)
> , since we know that iff the first bit of a tb is set,
> all other bits from that tb are set too.
>
> Signed-off-by: Emilio G. Cota
> -
Note that this test
if (b & ((1 << len) - 1))
can be simplified to
if (b & 1)
, since we know that iff the first bit of a tb is set,
all other bits from that tb are set too.
Signed-off-by: Emilio G. Cota
---
translate-all.c | 39 +--
1 file cha
