linux-kernel - Using unsigned int for loop counters - better performance for Architectures

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <AANLkTi=AuFBwT5AjRdjrkbe3=5d36TNr4Cp=r0VnEogH@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Fri, 30 Jul 2010 16:53:18 -0700
From:	"Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@...il.com>
To:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc:	"doug.dahlby" <Doug.Dahlby@...eros.com>,
	Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@...il.com>
Subject: Using unsigned int for loop counters - better performance for 
	Architectures - urban hacker legend?

For good while now I have been using unsigned int for every looper
iterator I implement on the kernel. I remember I picked this practice
up from Jiri but I just tried to look for actual documentation of this
online and could not find much. A simple test would be to run a series
of loop tests on different architectures with a regular int and then
with an unsigned int to see if performance improves but I obviously
don't have access to many machines with varying architectures.

So if you also follow this practice have you actually found evidence
for this practice, have you actually measured performance metrics? Or
is this just a urban hacker legend?

Please CC me as i am not subscribed to lkml.

  Luis
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/