I disagree. The = change inserts a conditional branch into the control
flow, with the potential to save a single memory access. I count ca. 2 CPU
cycles for a memory access and ca. 8 CPU cycles for a conditional jump,
therefore I would say that the change slows down the program a bit.
Bruno Haible [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jim Meyering wrote:
Other opinions welcome.
I mostly agree with Eric here: gnulib's substitute does not guarantee
that values stored in a 'bool' are either 0 or 1, therefore the code that
creates 'bool' values must guarantee it.
The question is how
Hello,
Bruno Haible [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jim Meyering wrote:
Some of the changes ( = ) are unconditional improvements, imho.
I disagree. The = change inserts a conditional branch into the control
flow, with the potential to save a single memory access. I count ca. 2 CPU
On Tuesday 02 September 2008 16:01:13 you wrote:
Would you please amend/squash the patch below into your patch and
adjust the line lengths of the log message to be = 72, so that
the generated ChangeLog lines don't wrap?
No problem, here is (I hope) complete patch. Also thanks for the regexp, it
Kamil Dudka [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
@@ -247,6 +254,41 @@ df_readable (bool negative, uintmax_t n, char *buf,
}
}
+/* Logical equivalence */
+#define LOG_EQ(a, b) (!(a) == !(b))
+
+/* Add integral value while using uintmax_t for value part and separate
+ negation flag. It adds
On Wednesday 03 September 2008 11:03:22 you wrote:
Kamil Dudka [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Since both arguments are already bool I see no need for LOG_EQ (it's the
only use anyway).
If you are using type bool, there is no guarantee there will be bool (0/1)
value inside. It ca be (and mostly is)
Kamil Dudka [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wednesday 03 September 2008 11:03:22 you wrote:
Kamil Dudka [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Since both arguments are already bool I see no need for LOG_EQ (it's the
only use anyway).
If you are using type bool, there is no guarantee there will be bool (0/1)
Andreas Schwab [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Kamil Dudka [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wednesday 03 September 2008 11:03:22 you wrote:
Kamil Dudka [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Since both arguments are already bool I see no need for LOG_EQ (it's the
only use anyway).
If you are using type bool, there
On Wednesday 03 September 2008 11:18:37 you wrote:
Kamil Dudka [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wednesday 03 September 2008 11:03:22 you wrote:
Kamil Dudka [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Since both arguments are already bool I see no need for LOG_EQ (it's the
only use anyway).
If you are using
Jim Meyering [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Andreas Schwab [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Kamil Dudka [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wednesday 03 September 2008 11:03:22 you wrote:
Kamil Dudka [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Since both arguments are already bool I see no need for LOG_EQ (it's the
only use
Andreas Schwab [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jim Meyering [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Andreas Schwab [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Kamil Dudka [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wednesday 03 September 2008 11:03:22 you wrote:
Kamil Dudka [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Since both arguments are already bool I see no
Jim Meyering [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I presume you're referring to uses of bool variables
like these (there are many more):
I'm referring to the use of the very same variables that are used in the
patch. If those are not pure boolean then you have a bug anyway.
Andreas.
--
Andreas
Andreas Schwab [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jim Meyering [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I presume you're referring to uses of bool variables
like these (there are many more):
I'm referring to the use of the very same variables that are used in the
patch. If those are not pure boolean then you have
Jim Meyering [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Andreas Schwab [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jim Meyering [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I presume you're referring to uses of bool variables
like these (there are many more):
I'm referring to the use of the very same variables that are used in the
patch. If
Kamil Dudka [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tuesday 02 September 2008 16:01:13 you wrote:
Would you please amend/squash the patch below into your patch and
adjust the line lengths of the log message to be = 72, so that
the generated ChangeLog lines don't wrap?
No problem, here is (I hope)
I'm referring to the use of the very same variables that are used in the
patch. If those are not pure boolean then you have a bug anyway.
Here are some of the changes needed to protect against the substandard
bool problem we're talking about. Some of the changes ( = )
are
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Eric Blake) wrote:
I'm referring to the use of the very same variables that are used in the
patch. If those are not pure boolean then you have a bug anyway.
Here are some of the changes needed to protect against the substandard
bool problem we're talking about. Some of
Kamil Dudka [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
@@ -296,7 +338,9 @@ show_dev (char const *disk, char const *mount_point,
if (!stat_file)
stat_file = mount_point ? mount_point : disk;
- if (get_fs_usage (stat_file, disk, fsu))
+ if (force_fsu)
+memcpy(fsu, force_fsu, sizeof(struct
On Tuesday 02 September 2008 10:55:05 you wrote:
fsu = *force_fsu;
I was not sure, if all supported compiler take this.
bzero is non-standard, and static variables are always initialized.
I have already heard about it. But inode_format, show_all_fs,
show_listed_fs, ... are initialized
Kamil Dudka [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tuesday 02 September 2008 10:55:05 you wrote:
fsu = *force_fsu;
I was not sure, if all supported compiler take this.
Structure assignment is part of C since even before KR2.
http://c-faq.com/struct/firstclass.html
Andreas.
--
Andreas Schwab,
Kamil Dudka [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...
New patch in attachment.
Hi Kamil,
Thanks for working on this!
You'll want to print totals with --inodes (-i), too.
Please adjust formatting to use spaces before each open parenthesis
and drop the short-named -c option. There is a strong disincentive
Jim Meyering [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Kamil Dudka [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
+#define LOG_EQ(a,b) (((a)(b))||(!(a)!(b)))
This can be written more simply as !((a) ^ (b))
Only if the operands are already boolean, and then you can just use a == b.
Andreas.
--
Andreas Schwab, SuSE Labs, [EMAIL
Andreas Schwab [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jim Meyering [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Kamil Dudka [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
+#define LOG_EQ(a,b) (((a)(b))||(!(a)!(b)))
This can be written more simply as !((a) ^ (b))
Only if the operands are already boolean, and then you can just use a == b.
Oh.
On Tue, Sep 2, 2008 at 12:06 PM, Jim Meyering [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Andreas Schwab [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jim Meyering [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Kamil Dudka [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
+#define LOG_EQ(a,b) (((a)(b))||(!(a)!(b)))
This can be written more simply as !((a) ^ (b))
Only if the
James Youngman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Sep 2, 2008 at 12:06 PM, Jim Meyering [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Andreas Schwab [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jim Meyering [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Kamil Dudka [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
+#define LOG_EQ(a,b) (((a)(b))||(!(a)!(b)))
This can be written
On Tuesday 02 September 2008 11:52:57 you wrote:
You'll want to print totals with --inodes (-i), too.
Good point, fixed...
Please adjust formatting to use spaces before each open parenthesis
Sorry for this detail, I always forget. Note that this is not acceptable for
macro definition with
Kamil Dudka [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tuesday 02 September 2008 11:52:57 you wrote:
You'll want to print totals with --inodes (-i), too.
Good point, fixed...
Please adjust formatting to use spaces before each open parenthesis
Sorry for this detail, I always forget. Note that this is not
Jim Meyering [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
diff --git a/tests/df/total b/tests/df/total
index be4bc19..5398deb 100755
--- a/tests/df/total
+++ b/tests/df/total
@@ -29,12 +29,12 @@ fail=0
umask 22
df tmp || fail=1
-grep ^total tmp fail=1
+grep '^total' tmp fail=1
This will fail if you
Andreas Schwab [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jim Meyering [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
diff --git a/tests/df/total b/tests/df/total
index be4bc19..5398deb 100755
--- a/tests/df/total
+++ b/tests/df/total
@@ -29,12 +29,12 @@ fail=0
umask 22
df tmp || fail=1
-grep ^total tmp fail=1
+grep
29 matches
Mail list logo
