On Fri, Apr 24, 2020 at 08:00:47AM +0700, Danh Doan wrote: > On 2020-04-23 16:58:51-0400, Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > These are just a few bits I noticed in the test-tool helper when the > > topic hit next (my -Wunused-parameter patch complained that we never > > looked at argc). > > I think I'll add this one to those few bits. Yeah, they all look sensible (I should have looked for more "No newline" cases. > I've take another look into bloom.h. > > I think we should drop BITS_PER_WORD definition and use CHAR_BIT > instead. It's a standard definition. > > To me, a WORD is an `int`, at least I was told that when I was still > in university and study about computer science. Yes, I agree it would be more clear as just CHAR_BIT if we are using single-char words. But I suspect the code could be looking at the bit patterns using larger word sizes (e.g., all of the ewah code uses 64-bit words). That might be worth exploring. -Peff
