Tom Lane wrote:
> Neil Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > While I still think we're on pretty solid ground assuming this
> > optimization is going to be made, I'm fine with defining something like
> > const_strlen() that uses sizeof(). Also, we can guard against programmer
> > mistakes via __builtin_constant_p() when using GCC.
>
> I think both you and Bruce are missing the really fundamental point
> here. You are both optimizing on the grounds that there is no god but
> RMS and his prophet is GCC. I have a somewhat wider view of which
> compilers we want to target.
Just to clarify, I am not against the use of sizeof() and I understand
Tom's point. My issue was the use of a constant that doesn't clearly
document.
As I remember the ability of the compiler to evaluate strlen is that if
there is a prototype in scope for strlen() that is somehow different
from the compilers then the compiler can not make the optimization. I
see my BSD using:
size_t strlen __P((const char *));
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your
message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
