Nozomi wrote: + for (i = 0; i < order * order; i++)
I might have written int n = order * order; for (i=0; i < n; i++) to avoid repeating the multiplication every time around the loop, even though multiplication is cheap nowadays, and -O1 will optimize it out anyway. Staying in the habit of avoiding 'expensive' operations in loop limits might still be a good idea, since the optimizer can't always save you.
Or is that considered ugly these days?
D3DXSHAdd() has the same code, which is where this came from, probably.
On 06/19/2012 10:47 AM, Dan Kegel wrote:
Nozomi wrote:
- for (i = 0; i < order * order; i++)
I might have written int n = order * order; for (i=0; i < n; i++) to avoid repeating the multiplication every time around the loop, even though multiplication is cheap nowadays, and -O1 will optimize it out anyway. Staying in the habit of avoiding 'expensive' operations in loop limits might still be a good idea, since the optimizer can't always save you.
Or is that considered ugly these days?
Of course as always a definitive "It depends". The safe approach is to *first* optimize for the human reader; the compilers this days are better at optimizing than the average programmer.
bye michael
-
Dan Kegel -
Michael Stefaniuc