Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Refactor "if(strspn(str, ...) == strlen(str)" code

On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 4:50 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: > Looking at this patch, I am not sure that it is worth worrying about. > This is a receipt to make back-patching a bit more complicated, and it > makes the code more complicated to understand. So I would vote for

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Refactor "if(strspn(str, ...) == strlen(str)" code

On Fri, Dec 9, 2016 at 3:23 AM, Aleksander Alekseev wrote: >> You could just change it to >> if (str[strspn(str, " \t\n\r\f")] == '\0') >> to mitigate calling strlen. It's safe to do so because strspn will >> only return values from 0 to strlen(str). > >> [...] I have

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Refactor "if(strspn(str, ...) == strlen(str)" code

Tom, Geoff, Thanks for your feedback! Here is version 2 of this patch. > You could just change it to > if (str[strspn(str, " \t\n\r\f")] == '\0') > to mitigate calling strlen. It's safe to do so because strspn will > only return values from 0 to strlen(str). > [...] I have serious doubts that

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Refactor "if(strspn(str, ...) == strlen(str)" code

Aleksander Alekseev writes: > How about rewriting such a code like this? > if (pg_str_containsonly(str, " \t\n\r\f")) Function name seems weirdly spelled. Also, I believe that in nearly all use-cases the number of data characters that would typically be examined is

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Refactor "if(strspn(str, ...) == strlen(str)" code

On 8 December 2016 at 15:54, Aleksander Alekseev wrote: > Hi. > > I noticed that there is a lot of repeating code like this: > > ``` > if (strspn(str, " \t\n\r\f") == strlen(str)) > ``` > > I personally don't find it particularly readable, not mentioning that >

[HACKERS] [PATCH] Refactor "if(strspn(str, ...) == strlen(str)" code

Hi. I noticed that there is a lot of repeating code like this: ``` if (strspn(str, " \t\n\r\f") == strlen(str)) ``` I personally don't find it particularly readable, not mentioning that traversing a string twice doesn't look as a good idea (you can check using objdump that latest GCC 6.2