On Fri, Mar 02, 2018 at 02:44:53PM +0100, Ulf Magnusson wrote: > Not sure this is an improvement. Zeroing the bytes after the initial > null terminator is redundant, and the explicit '\0' makes it clearer to > me what's going on.
Yes, I agree with you, that is definitely quite true. This along with the other comments you made me want to rethink this a little bit. On Fri, Mar 02, 2018 at 02:44:53PM +0100, Ulf Magnusson wrote: > I like the approach, but I wonder if we can take it a bit further. > Here's what I'd do: > > 1. Rename the 'in' parameter to 's'. > 2. Rename 'p' to 'in'. > 3. Rename 'end' to 'out' > > At that point, you're reading from 'in' and writing to 'out', which > seems pretty nice and readable. > > This code is pretty cold by the way, so it wouldn't matter for > performance. GCC knows how functions like strcat() work too, and uses > that to optimize (see > https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Other-Builtins.html). > > I'm all for trying to make Kconfig's code neater though. Since this code is pretty cold (completely agree with you there), I think it would actually be much more useful to rework my patch to have a more style-centric approach rather than an optimization-centric one; this code would definitely benefit from being neater. Some useful changes would be to rename of the _atrociously_ short identifiers like p and l. Anyway I'll give that link a read over and try and make a V2 later on today. Appreciate the feedback, thanks for the comments! -- Cheers, Joey Pabalinas
Description: PGP signature