[T106][ZXW-22]7520V3SCV2.01.01.02P42U09_VEC_V0.8_AP_VEC origin source commit
Change-Id: Ic6e05d89ecd62fc34f82b23dcf306c93764aec4b
diff --git a/ap/app/busybox/src/docs/smallint.txt b/ap/app/busybox/src/docs/smallint.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..b57dfd7
--- /dev/null
+++ b/ap/app/busybox/src/docs/smallint.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,39 @@
+ smalluint i = index_in_str_array(params, name) + 1;
+ if (i == 0)
+ return 0;
+ if (!(i == 4 || i == 5))
+ i |= 0x80;
+
+ return i;
+
+I think that this optimization is wrong.
+index_in_str_array returns int. At best, compiler will use it as-is.
+At worst, compiler will try to make sure that it is properly cast
+into a byte, which probably results in "n = n & 0xff" on many architectures.
+
+You save nothing on space here because i is not stored on-stack,
+gcc will keep it in register. And even if it *is* stored,
+it is *stack* storage, which is cheap (unlike data/bss).
+
+small[u]ints are useful _mostly_ for:
+
+(a) flag variables
+ (a1) global flag variables - make data/bss smaller
+ (a2) local flag variables - "a = 5", "a |= 0x40" are smaller
+ for bytes than for full integers.
+ Example:
+ on i386, there is no widening constant store instruction
+ for some types of address modes, thus
+ movl $0x0,(%eax) is "c7 00 00 00 00 00"
+ movb $0x0,(%eax) is "c6 00 00"
+(b) small integer structure members, when you have many such
+ structures allocated,
+ or when these are global objects of this structure type
+
+small[u]ints are *NOT* useful for:
+
+(a) function parameters and return values -
+ they are pushed on-stack or stored in registers, bytes here are *harder*
+ to deal with than ints
+(b) "computational" variables - "a++", "a = b*3 + 7" may take more code to do
+ on bytes than on ints on some architectires.