From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG  Thu Nov  1 03:14:30 2007
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: current@hub.freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DD02F16A581
	for <current@hub.freebsd.org>; Thu,  1 Nov 2007 03:14:30 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from davidxu@FreeBSD.org)
Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (freefall.freebsd.org
	[IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::28])
	by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B729B13C447;
	Thu,  1 Nov 2007 03:14:30 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from davidxu@FreeBSD.org)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (root@localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by freefall.freebsd.org (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id lA13ERDM075303;
	Thu, 1 Nov 2007 03:14:28 GMT (envelope-from davidxu@freebsd.org)
Message-ID: <472944C9.5020304@freebsd.org>
Date: Thu, 01 Nov 2007 11:15:21 +0800
From: David Xu <davidxu@FreeBSD.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; FreeBSD i386; en-US; rv:1.7.13) Gecko/20070516
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Andrey Chernov <ache@nagual.pp.ru>
References: <20071101025937.GB94332@nagual.pp.ru>
In-Reply-To: <20071101025937.GB94332@nagual.pp.ru>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: current@FreeBSD.org
Subject: Re: non-functional backout for review
X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current
	<freebsd-current.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>, 
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-current@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>,
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 01 Nov 2007 03:14:30 -0000

Andrey Chernov wrote:
> Some people complaints that new check in __isctype() is not human readable 
> and requests for backout. Compiler gives almost identical code for old and 
> new excepting non-optimized case where non-human readable one wins. I am a 
> bit tired to change it forth and back, so ask for final consensus here.
> 
> Old one
> 
> return (_c < 0 || _c >= 128) ? 0 :
> 
> New one (requests for backout)
> 
> return (_c & ~0x7F) ? 0 :
> 

I will use a version which compiler can generate optimized code.
the name __isctype already tells what the function is doing. :-)

Regards,
David Xu