On Wednesday 14 January 2009 14:21, walter harms wrote: > >> unsigned timestamp_before_wait=0; > >> > >> will do the same ? > > > > Yes. but > > > > unsigned timestamp_before_wait = timestamp_before_wait; > > > > is better wrt code size. :) > > > > fixed. thanks. > > > > aehm, that will only fool the compiler to thing it is used. > timestamp_before_wait=0 will make sure that it works even if the 'if > (tv.tv_sec > 0)' fails. > and it will fail because: > > timeout = 0; > already_waited_sec = 0; > ... > tv.tv_sec = timeout - already_waited_sec; > if (tv.tv_sec > 0) > timestamp_before_wait = (unsigned)monotonic_sec(); > ... > already_waited_sec += (unsigned)monotonic_sec() - timestamp_before_wait;
It's the choice between smaller code and more clearly written code. In this particular case, do you see a way for timestamp_before_wait to be used w/o initialization? -- vda _______________________________________________ busybox mailing list [email protected] http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/busybox
