Re: non-functional backout for review

On Thu, Nov 01, 2007 at 11:15:21AM +0800, David Xu wrote:
> 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. :-)

Already done.

-- 
http://ache.pp.ru/