On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 9:36 PM, Florian Pritz <[email protected]> wrote: > > Comment changed, but not the code? If you know where that + 9 comes from > it might be a good idea to replace it with strlen("whatever") which the > compile should optimize out later, but writing it this way makes the > whole thing a lot clearer.
Do the pacman developers trust the compiler with optimizing strlen()? Because there's sizeof which does a perfectly predictable (off-by-one) job using but an operator for measuring the length of a string constant. Furthermore it does so without implying the compiler would sidestep the standard library's work in a way or another... Who says you can't have a libc "obscurelibc" that does something else there? A preprocessor macro branching on (#x == '"') or (sizeof(x) == sizeof(char*)) would be the less beautiful alternative, but I think I'm risking to be yelled back at that way. :-) cheers! mar77i
