Jim Meyering wrote: > Other opinions welcome. I mostly agree with Eric here: gnulib's substitute does not guarantee that values stored in a 'bool' are either 0 or 1, therefore the code that creates 'bool' values must guarantee it.
> The question is how best to *maintain* the precondition in > the face of future development. By code inspection. We have no compiler warning for this kind of thing. >> Some of the changes (& => &&) are unconditional improvements, imho. I disagree. The & => && change inserts a conditional branch into the control flow, with the potential to save a single memory access. I count ca. 2 CPU cycles for a memory access and ca. 8 CPU cycles for a conditional jump, therefore I would say that the change slows down the program a bit. Bruno _______________________________________________ Bug-coreutils mailing list Bug-coreutils@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-coreutils
