19 Jan
2012
19 Jan
'12
4:39 p.m.
On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 01:40:35PM +0100, Peter Ujfalusi wrote:
On 01/19/2012 11:48 AM, Mark Brown wrote:
I'd just replace it with a continue on sizes we don't want, much simpler.
If I can do this (bits == 24):
This mail took me a little while to parse but I think you're trying to say you insist on the microoptimisation. Unless you can come up with a microoptimisation which doesn't take effort to read please write something simple. The reason I wasn't happy with the original patch was that what should be a trivial bit of code took far too long to check. Maintainability is vastly more important than microoptimising a slow path, having to read things again later was the whole reason I didn't do any filtering in the first place.