We use cookies to ensure you have the best browsing experience on our website. Please read our cookie policy for more information about how we use cookies.
Nice one. I arrived at same algo in C, minus the one liner ternary. Looks neat, I like it. Although I'd be curious if there is not a small performance loss of doing:
c=!!(expr);
vs
(expr);c=1;
the former may require additional conditional logic depending on architecture (for instance x86 - http://riffwiki.com/MOV_(x86_instruction) - the MOV instruction doesn't affect ZeroFlag, so I'd guess CPU would have to evaluate whether your expr results in a non-zero value. It's obvious to us as we can see the wider context of the algorithm, but not the CPU)
Birthday Cake Candles
You are viewing a single comment's thread. Return to all comments →
Nice one. I arrived at same algo in C, minus the one liner ternary. Looks neat, I like it. Although I'd be curious if there is not a small performance loss of doing:
vs
the former may require additional conditional logic depending on architecture (for instance x86 - http://riffwiki.com/MOV_(x86_instruction) - the MOV instruction doesn't affect ZeroFlag, so I'd guess CPU would have to evaluate whether your expr results in a non-zero value. It's obvious to us as we can see the wider context of the algorithm, but not the CPU)