On Thu, 24 Dec 2009, Albin Tonnerre wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 12:16 +0100, Vincent Torri wrote :
>
>
>> On Thu, 24 Dec 2009, Brett Nash wrote:
>
>
> Also, doing sizeof() is a compiler directive so does not incur any
> performance hits...plus it matches the rest of EFL.
>
using a
Albin Tonnerre wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 12:16 +0100, Vincent Torri wrote :
>
>
>
>> On Thu, 24 Dec 2009, Brett Nash wrote:
>>
>
>
>
> Also, doing sizeof() is a compiler directive so does not incur any
> performance hits...plus it matches the rest of EFL.
>
>
>
On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 12:16 +0100, Vincent Torri wrote :
> On Thu, 24 Dec 2009, Brett Nash wrote:
> >>> Also, doing sizeof() is a compiler directive so does not incur any
> >>> performance hits...plus it matches the rest of EFL.
> >> using a macro does not involved any performance hit too as PAT
On Thu, 24 Dec 2009, Brett Nash wrote:
>
>>> Also, doing sizeof() is a compiler directive so does not incur any
>>> performance hits...plus it matches the rest of EFL.
>>
>> using a macro does not involved any performance hit too as PATH_MAX
>> is directly replaced by its value before the compil
> > Also, doing sizeof() is a compiler directive so does not incur any
> > performance hits...plus it matches the rest of EFL.
>
> using a macro does not involved any performance hit too as PATH_MAX
> is directly replaced by its value before the compilation.
Yes, but it's a damn big performance
> >>
> > Also, doing sizeof() is a compiler directive so does not incur any
> > performance hits...
>
> btw, on all plateforms ? or only linux ?
That sizeof can only be calculated at compile time, so all platforms it
has to be done by the compiler. The size information about 'buf'
doesn't exist
On Wed, 23 Dec 2009, Christopher Michael wrote:
> On 12/23/2009 06:14 PM, Christopher Michael wrote:
>> On 12/23/2009 06:01 PM, Vincent Torri wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, 23 Dec 2009, Enlightenment SVN wrote:
>>>
Log:
When using snprintf or fgets, etc, do not use PATH_MAX directly as
On Wed, 23 Dec 2009, Christopher Michael wrote:
> On 12/23/2009 06:14 PM, Christopher Michael wrote:
>> On 12/23/2009 06:01 PM, Vincent Torri wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, 23 Dec 2009, Enlightenment SVN wrote:
>>>
Log:
When using snprintf or fgets, etc, do not use PATH_MAX directly as
On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 18:14:57 -0500
Christopher Michael wrote:
> On 12/23/2009 06:01 PM, Vincent Torri wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Wed, 23 Dec 2009, Enlightenment SVN wrote:
> >
> >> Log:
> >> When using snprintf or fgets, etc, do not use PATH_MAX directly
> >> as the size of the variable...use sizeof
On 12/23/2009 06:14 PM, Christopher Michael wrote:
> On 12/23/2009 06:01 PM, Vincent Torri wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Wed, 23 Dec 2009, Enlightenment SVN wrote:
>>
>>> Log:
>>>When using snprintf or fgets, etc, do not use PATH_MAX directly as the
>>> size
>>>of the variable...use sizeof() compiler
On 12/23/2009 06:01 PM, Vincent Torri wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, 23 Dec 2009, Enlightenment SVN wrote:
>
>> Log:
>> When using snprintf or fgets, etc, do not use PATH_MAX directly as the size
>> of the variable...use sizeof() compiler directive (lots of these).
>
> that's something i don't understand
On Wed, Dec 23, 2009 at 9:01 PM, Vincent Torri wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, 23 Dec 2009, Enlightenment SVN wrote:
>
>> Log:
>> When using snprintf or fgets, etc, do not use PATH_MAX directly as the size
>> of the variable...use sizeof() compiler directive (lots of these).
>
> that's something i don't un
On Wed, 23 Dec 2009, Enlightenment SVN wrote:
> Log:
> When using snprintf or fgets, etc, do not use PATH_MAX directly as the size
> of the variable...use sizeof() compiler directive (lots of these).
that's something i don't understand.
char buf[PATH_MAX] is an array of size PATH_MAX in byte
13 matches
Mail list logo
