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)
It is not CPU that analyses your c++, the compiler does. CPU doesn't "thin" but compiler does. It is really pointless to "optimize" your code this way because compiler is required to emit assembly that does what is ment but in which order and through which instructions, it is not specified. You better belive it does good job. You express c++ although it is slower than ++c: there is no way the compiler would use slower version if it doesn't afect the program flow. With no optimization flags may be.
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)
thanks
It is not CPU that analyses your c++, the compiler does. CPU doesn't "thin" but compiler does. It is really pointless to "optimize" your code this way because compiler is required to emit assembly that does what is ment but in which order and through which instructions, it is not specified. You better belive it does good job. You express c++ although it is slower than ++c: there is no way the compiler would use slower version if it doesn't afect the program flow. With no optimization flags may be.