Josh Stone <jistone(a)redhat.com> writes:
On 12/12/2013 04:13 AM, Petr Machata wrote:
> Josh Stone <jistone(a)redhat.com> writes:
>> +static inline uint64_t
>> +__libdw_get_uleb128 (const unsigned char **addrp)
>> +{
>> + uint64_t acc = 0;
>> + get_uleb128_step (acc, *addrp, 0);
>> + for (unsigned int i = 1; i < len_leb128(acc); ++i)
>> + get_uleb128_step (acc, *addrp, i);
>
> Is there a reason not to use for (i = 0; ...) instead of the pre-step
> followed by a for (i = 1; ...)?
Ah, yes, I should explain that a little. I found that the code was
actually faster with the first step unrolled.
Ah, I think that's fine then, but needs a comment.
Thanks,
PM