Hi, On 2026-02-06T14:29:34+0100, Milan Straka wrote: > Hi all, > > > -----Original message----- > > From: "Kevin J. McCarthy" <[email protected]> > > Sent: 6 Feb 2026, 09:41 > > > > On Thu, Feb 05, 2026 at 02:57:47AM +0100, Gero Treuner wrote: > > > Out of curiosity I rewrote it to iterate over the three subdirectory > > > names and compared the difference in size of the binaries. In this > > > case it apparently is dominated by (debug) symbols and not hitting a > > > threshold for reduced size of a fully stripped binary on my system. > > > > > > So having done this anyway, I propose an optimization utilizing the > > > uniform length of the names. (Further compacting the code saves more > > > space but degrades readability of the logic.) > > > > Thanks Gero! I certainly agree it's more optimized. :D > > > > However, I personally argue for code clarity except when optimization is > > called for. In this case, I don't think it's worth the trade off. See just > > below the function in mh.c, mx_is_mh(), for similar code, also called by > > mx_get_magic(). > > > > As always, if others disagree please just say so. > > personally I see it the same way, considering readability and simplicity > a big priority; parsing the proposed version is (at least for me) much > harder than the original version.
+1 Except that maybe with fstatat(2) (as Crystal said) it could be readable --we'd have to see the code, though--. readability >>> optimizations Have a lovely day! Alex > > Cheers, > Milan S. -- <https://www.alejandro-colomar.es>
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
