Kaartic Sivaraam <kaarticsivaraam91196@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > On Saturday 16 September 2017 09:36 AM, Michael Haggerty wrote: >>> Does the following alternate fix work? I think I prefer it because >>> it doesn't require introducing a new global. [...] >>> #define for_each_string_list_item(item,list) \ >>> - for (item = (list)->items; item < (list)->items + (list)->nr; ++item) >>> + for (item = (list)->items; \ >>> + (list)->items && item < (list)->items + (list)->nr; \ >>> + ++item) >> This is the possibility that I was referring to as "add[ing] overhead to >> each iteration of the loop". I'd rather not add an extra test-and-branch >> to every iteration of a loop in which `list->items` is *not* NULL, which >> your solution appears to do. Or are compilers routinely able to optimize >> the check out? > > It seems at least 'gcc' is able to optimize this out even with a -O1 > and 'clang' optimizes this out with a -O2. Taking a sneak peek at > the 'Makefile' shows that our default is -O2. But doesn't the versions of gcc and clang currently available do the right thing with the current code without this change anyway? I've been operating under the assumption that this is to future-proof the code even when the compilers change to use the "NULL+0 is undefined" as an excuse to make demons fly out of your nose, so unfortunately I do not think it is not so huge a plus to find that the current compilers do the right thing to the code with proposed updates.
