On Sat, Jan 9, 2010 at 6:22 PM, Joerg Sonnenberger <jo...@britannica.bec.de> wrote: > You have analysed the situation correctly. The problem is that the > compiler does not know that the signed numvnodes is never negative, so > it creates different code. E.g. on AMD64 it is 6 instructions for the > signed division by 2 compared to one instruction for the explicit shift > or the unsigned division.
That's a good argument for making numvnodes unsigned, but not for obfuscating the code.
