Andy Shevchenko wrote: > On Wed, Oct 09, 2024 at 03:30:14PM +0200, Rasmus Villemoes wrote: > > ... > > > Rather than the struct assignments, I think it's easier to read if you > > just do > > > > struct range r; > > > > r.start = 0xc0ffee00ba5eba11; > > r.end = r.start; > > ... > > > > r.start = 0xc0ffee; > > r.end = 0xba5eba11; > > ... > > > > which saves two lines per test and for the first one makes it more > > obvious that the start and end values are identical. > > With DEFINE_RANGE() it will save even more lines! Yea I've added DEFINE_RANGE(). Thanks. > > .. > > > > + if (buf < end) > > > + *buf++ = '-'; > > > > No. Either all your callers pass a (probably stack-allocated) buffer > > which is guaranteed to be big enough, in which case you don't need the > > "if (buf < end)", or if some callers may "print" directly to the buffer > > passed to vsnprintf(), the buf++ must still be done unconditionally in > > order that vsnprintf(NULL, 0, ...) [used by fx kasprintf] can accurately > > determine how large the output string would be. > > Ah, good catch, I would add... > > > So, either > > > > *buf++ = '-' > > > > or > > > > if (buf < end) > > *buf = '-'; > > buf++; > > ...that we use rather ++buf in such cases, but it doesn't really matter. Done. Ira
