Vineet Gupta writes:
> On 07/09/2013 09:21 AM, Wedson Almeida Filho wrote:
> > On Sat, Jul 6, 2013 at 9:59 PM, Joe Perches wrote:
> >>
> >> Not correct.
> >>
> >>> while (start < end) {
> >>> - size_t mid = start + (end - start) / 2;
> >>> + size_t mid =
On 07/09/2013 09:21 AM, Wedson Almeida Filho wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 6, 2013 at 9:59 PM, Joe Perches wrote:
>>
>> Not correct.
>>
>>> while (start < end) {
>>> - size_t mid = start + (end - start) / 2;
>>> + size_t mid = (start + end) / 2;
>>
>> size_t start =
On 07/09/2013 09:21 AM, Wedson Almeida Filho wrote:
On Sat, Jul 6, 2013 at 9:59 PM, Joe Perches j...@perches.com wrote:
Not correct.
while (start end) {
- size_t mid = start + (end - start) / 2;
+ size_t mid = (start + end) / 2;
size_t start =
Vineet Gupta writes:
On 07/09/2013 09:21 AM, Wedson Almeida Filho wrote:
On Sat, Jul 6, 2013 at 9:59 PM, Joe Perches j...@perches.com wrote:
Not correct.
while (start end) {
- size_t mid = start + (end - start) / 2;
+ size_t mid = (start + end)
On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 9:12 PM, Joe Perches wrote:
>> There is no functional change, but this change eliminates a subtraction that
>> the compiler doesn't optimize out (as of gcc 4.7.3).
>
> That's flatly incorrect.
I'm not arguing this. I in fact already acknowledged that the
statement is
On Mon, 2013-07-08 at 20:51 -0700, Wedson Almeida Filho wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 6, 2013 at 9:59 PM, Joe Perches wrote:
> >
> > Not correct.
> >
> >> while (start < end) {
> >> - size_t mid = start + (end - start) / 2;
> >> + size_t mid = (start + end) / 2;
> >
> >
On Sat, Jul 6, 2013 at 9:59 PM, Joe Perches wrote:
>
> Not correct.
>
>> while (start < end) {
>> - size_t mid = start + (end - start) / 2;
>> + size_t mid = (start + end) / 2;
>
> size_t start = 0x8000;
> size_t end = 0x8001;
Good point,
On Sat, Jul 6, 2013 at 9:59 PM, Joe Perches j...@perches.com wrote:
Not correct.
while (start end) {
- size_t mid = start + (end - start) / 2;
+ size_t mid = (start + end) / 2;
size_t start = 0x8000;
size_t end = 0x8001;
Good
On Mon, 2013-07-08 at 20:51 -0700, Wedson Almeida Filho wrote:
On Sat, Jul 6, 2013 at 9:59 PM, Joe Perches j...@perches.com wrote:
Not correct.
while (start end) {
- size_t mid = start + (end - start) / 2;
+ size_t mid = (start + end) / 2;
On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 9:12 PM, Joe Perches j...@perches.com wrote:
There is no functional change, but this change eliminates a subtraction that
the compiler doesn't optimize out (as of gcc 4.7.3).
That's flatly incorrect.
I'm not arguing this. I in fact already acknowledged that the
Wedson Almeida Filho writes:
> There is no functional change, but this change eliminates a subtraction that
> the compiler doesn't optimize out (as of gcc 4.7.3).
>
> Signed-off-by: Wedson Almeida Filho
> ---
> lib/bsearch.c |2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff
Wedson Almeida Filho wedso...@gmail.com writes:
There is no functional change, but this change eliminates a subtraction that
the compiler doesn't optimize out (as of gcc 4.7.3).
Signed-off-by: Wedson Almeida Filho wedso...@gmail.com
---
lib/bsearch.c |2 +-
1 file changed, 1
On Sat, 2013-07-06 at 16:07 -0700, Wedson Almeida Filho wrote:
> There is no functional change, but this change eliminates a subtraction that
> the compiler doesn't optimize out (as of gcc 4.7.3).
Not correct.
> diff --git a/lib/bsearch.c b/lib/bsearch.c
[]
> @@ -37,7 +37,7 @@ void
On Sat, 2013-07-06 at 16:07 -0700, Wedson Almeida Filho wrote:
There is no functional change, but this change eliminates a subtraction that
the compiler doesn't optimize out (as of gcc 4.7.3).
Not correct.
diff --git a/lib/bsearch.c b/lib/bsearch.c
[]
@@ -37,7 +37,7 @@ void *bsearch(const
14 matches
Mail list logo
