4 ms·
The OP's implementation wastes cycles in the n == 0 case because the statement `if (count == n)` is unnecessary.
by mdj 14y ago
The OP's implementation wastes cycles in the n == 0 case because the statement `if (count == n)` is unnecessary.
- jazzychad 14y agocool, I'm genuinely curious how I could save those cycles without adding more elsewhere?
- ben0x539 14y agoAnd surely the `count++;` statement. I don't see an obvious solution that doesn't "unroll" the three cases and doesn't waste any cycles, but maybe that is why I don't work at OP's company. ;)
- jazzychad 14y agoyes, the count++ (and count variable itself) are unnecessary since I could just text n against 0 and then break. good catch.
- ben0x539 14y agoBut decrementing n would still cost you cycles in the case where n was given as 0 that you wouldn't need if you had separated out that case, wouldn't it?
- jazzychad 14y agoyes, that's right. Then it becomes a tradeoff of cycles and code-readability since I would have to special case for 0.