Re: [PATCH] dir.c: avoid c99 array initialization

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



"Shawn O. Pearce" <spearce@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

> Alex Riesen <raa.lkml@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> 
>> For just these 5 values it is likely more effective to just use
>> a conditional statement (less stack requested, less likely
>> some stupid compiler tries to optimize it wrongly).
>> And just as readable.
>> 
>> diff --git a/dir.c b/dir.c
>> index 92452eb..1cf5985 100644
>> --- a/dir.c
>> +++ b/dir.c
>> @@ -680,17 +680,12 @@ static int cmp_name(const void *p1, const void *p2)
>>   */
>>  static int simple_length(const char *match)
>>  {
>> -	const char special[256] = {
>> -		[0] = 1, ['?'] = 1,
>> -		['\\'] = 1, ['*'] = 1,
>> -		['['] = 1
>> -	};
>>  	int len = -1;
>> 
>>  	for (;;) {
>>  		unsigned char c = *match++;
>>  		len++;
>> -		if (special[c])
>> +		if (!c || '?' == c || '\\' == c || '*' == c || '[' == c)
>
> I am reminded of a year old thread with my patch to this:
>
>   http://kerneltrap.org/mailarchive/git/2007/4/15/243541
>
> The patch never applied.  I wonder why.  Was it just Dscho's comment?

I think it was an unanswered question about stealing one bit from
ctype.c::sane_ctype[] that kept the discussion in limbo.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel Development]     [Gcc Help]     [IETF Annouce]     [DCCP]     [Netdev]     [Networking]     [Security]     [V4L]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux SCSI]     [Fedora Users]

  Powered by Linux