Jeff Trawick wrote:
> Stas Bekman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>
>>this patch:
>>- removes if (!short_report) { } condition since the code inside this
>> condition is already in the block of the same condition.
>>
>
> Stas, I didn't see that the short_report condition was redundant.
> Please check.
You are correct Jeff.
But the whole code inside if(ap_extended_status) is irrelevant when
short_report is true. If I'm not mistaken this if() condition should be
removed including the similar if (!short_report) before the for loop and
simply to say:
if (ap_extended_status && !short_report) {
if (no_table_report)
for (i = 0; i < server_limit; ++i) {
for (j = 0; j < thread_limit; ++j) {
...
}
}
}
Am I right? This also saves a few hundred if not thousands if() calls on
servers with many threads.
This code definitely needs some loop unrolling/simplifications, it's
extremely hard to follow the logic when the bodies of the conditions are
so big.
> Also, I guess I shouldn't try to simultaneously commit code and try to
> get my daughter to wake up and eat breakfast because I forgot to add a
> "Submitted by:" to the commit. Sorry!
Nuh, that's OK :)
_____________________________________________________________________
Stas Bekman JAm_pH -- Just Another mod_perl Hacker
http://stason.org/ mod_perl Guide http://perl.apache.org/guide
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://ticketmaster.com http://apacheweek.com
http://singlesheaven.com http://perl.apache.org http://perlmonth.com/
