At 09:28 AM 12/12/2002, Brane wrote:
>William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
>
>>At 06:49 AM 12/12/2002, Jeff Trawick wrote:
>>
>>
>>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>wrowe 2002/12/11 23:01:52
>>>>
>>>> Modified: file_io/unix filestat.c
>>>> Log:
>>>> switch {case} and default: are probably better for handling this case.
>>>> Is anyone aware of a platform where S_IFxxx # isn't available, yet
>>>> S_ISxxx(#) is?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>RH Linux 7.3 doesn't have S_IFFIFO
>>
>>Yet it does have S_ISFIFO?
>
>The funny thing about this change is that, for a short switch like that,
>many modern compilers just convert it to a series of "if ... else if"
>tests. So just putting the "else"s in there wouldn've been better -- not
>to mention more correct. I don't think generating a jump table for just
>seven cases makes sense on any platform.
While I agree with you if the tests...
if (i == S_IFxxx) if (S_IFxxx(i))
were identical, they aren't. This change still gains us the potential benefit
(possibly optimized away) of not remasking the type from the mode repeatedly.
I've worked around missing S_IFFIFO and S_IFSOCK. If there are others
on other odd platforms, I'll surrender, revert the patch and add the missing
else-es (in the better order they are given now; reg, dir, lnk etc.)
Bill
