>> I disagree. The & => && change inserts a conditional branch into the control
>> flow, with the potential to save a single memory access. I count ca. 2 CPU
>> cycles for a memory access and ca. 8 CPU cycles for a conditional jump,
>> therefore I would say that the change slows down the program a
Hello,
> Bruno Haible <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Jim Meyering wrote:
> >
> >>> Some of the changes (& => &&) are unconditional improvements, imho.
> >
> > I disagree. The & => && change inserts a conditional branch into the control
> > flow, with the potential to save a single memory access. I
Bruno Haible <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Jim Meyering wrote:
>> Other opinions welcome.
>
> I mostly agree with Eric here: gnulib's substitute does not guarantee
> that values stored in a 'bool' are either 0 or 1, therefore the code that
> creates 'bool' values must guarantee it.
>
>> The question
Jim Meyering wrote:
> Other opinions welcome.
I mostly agree with Eric here: gnulib's substitute does not guarantee
that values stored in a 'bool' are either 0 or 1, therefore the code that
creates 'bool' values must guarantee it.
> The question is how best to *maintain* the precondition in
> the
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Eric Blake) wrote:
>> > I'm referring to the use of the very same variables that are used in the
>> > patch. If those are not pure boolean then you have a bug anyway.
>>
>> Here are some of the changes needed to protect against the substandard
>> "bool" problem we're talking abo
> >
> > I'm referring to the use of the very same variables that are used in the
> > patch. If those are not pure boolean then you have a bug anyway.
>
> Here are some of the changes needed to protect against the substandard
> "bool" problem we're talking about. Some of the changes (& => &&)
> a
Kamil Dudka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tuesday 02 September 2008 16:01:13 you wrote:
>> Would you please amend/squash the patch below into your patch and
>> adjust the line lengths of the log message to be <= 72, so that
>> the generated ChangeLog lines don't wrap?
> No problem, here is (I hop
Jim Meyering <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Andreas Schwab <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Jim Meyering <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>>> I presume you're referring to uses of "bool" variables
>>> like these (there are many more):
>>
>> I'm referring to the use of the very same variables that are us
Andreas Schwab <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Jim Meyering <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> I presume you're referring to uses of "bool" variables
>> like these (there are many more):
>
> I'm referring to the use of the very same variables that are used in the
> patch. If those are not pure boolean
Jim Meyering <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I presume you're referring to uses of "bool" variables
> like these (there are many more):
I'm referring to the use of the very same variables that are used in the
patch. If those are not pure boolean then you have a bug anyway.
Andreas.
--
Andreas S
Andreas Schwab <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Jim Meyering <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Andreas Schwab <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> Kamil Dudka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
On Wednesday 03 September 2008 11:03:22 you wrote:
> Kamil Dudka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Since both argume
Jim Meyering <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Andreas Schwab <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Kamil Dudka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>> On Wednesday 03 September 2008 11:03:22 you wrote:
Kamil Dudka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Since both arguments are already bool I see no need for LOG_EQ (i
On Wednesday 03 September 2008 11:18:37 you wrote:
> Kamil Dudka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Wednesday 03 September 2008 11:03:22 you wrote:
> >> Kamil Dudka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> Since both arguments are already bool I see no need for LOG_EQ (it's the
> >> only use anyway).
> >
>
Andreas Schwab <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Kamil Dudka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> On Wednesday 03 September 2008 11:03:22 you wrote:
>>> Kamil Dudka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>> Since both arguments are already bool I see no need for LOG_EQ (it's the
>>> only use anyway).
>> If you are usin
Kamil Dudka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wednesday 03 September 2008 11:03:22 you wrote:
>> Kamil Dudka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Since both arguments are already bool I see no need for LOG_EQ (it's the
>> only use anyway).
> If you are using type bool, there is no guarantee there will be
On Wednesday 03 September 2008 11:03:22 you wrote:
> Kamil Dudka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Since both arguments are already bool I see no need for LOG_EQ (it's the
> only use anyway).
If you are using type bool, there is no guarantee there will be bool (0/1)
value inside. It ca be (and mostly
Kamil Dudka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> @@ -247,6 +254,41 @@ df_readable (bool negative, uintmax_t n, char *buf,
> }
> }
>
> +/* Logical equivalence */
> +#define LOG_EQ(a, b) (!(a) == !(b))
> +
> +/* Add integral value while using uintmax_t for value part and separate
> + negation fla
On Tuesday 02 September 2008 16:01:13 you wrote:
> Would you please amend/squash the patch below into your patch and
> adjust the line lengths of the log message to be <= 72, so that
> the generated ChangeLog lines don't wrap?
No problem, here is (I hope) complete patch. Also thanks for the regexp,
Andreas Schwab <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Jim Meyering <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> diff --git a/tests/df/total b/tests/df/total
>> index be4bc19..5398deb 100755
>> --- a/tests/df/total
>> +++ b/tests/df/total
>> @@ -29,12 +29,12 @@ fail=0
>> umask 22
>>
>> df > tmp || fail=1
>> -grep ^tot
Jim Meyering <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> diff --git a/tests/df/total b/tests/df/total
> index be4bc19..5398deb 100755
> --- a/tests/df/total
> +++ b/tests/df/total
> @@ -29,12 +29,12 @@ fail=0
> umask 22
>
> df > tmp || fail=1
> -grep ^total tmp && fail=1
> +grep '^total' tmp && fail=1
This w
Kamil Dudka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tuesday 02 September 2008 11:52:57 you wrote:
>> You'll want to print totals with --inodes (-i), too.
> Good point, fixed...
>
>> Please adjust formatting to use spaces before each open parenthesis
> Sorry for this detail, I always forget. Note that this
On Tuesday 02 September 2008 11:52:57 you wrote:
> You'll want to print totals with --inodes (-i), too.
Good point, fixed...
> Please adjust formatting to use spaces before each open parenthesis
Sorry for this detail, I always forget. Note that this is not acceptable for
macro definition with arg
"James Youngman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 2, 2008 at 12:06 PM, Jim Meyering <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Andreas Schwab <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> Jim Meyering <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Kamil Dudka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> +#define LOG_EQ(a,b) (((a)&&(b))||(!(a)
On Tue, Sep 2, 2008 at 12:06 PM, Jim Meyering <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Andreas Schwab <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Jim Meyering <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>> Kamil Dudka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
+#define LOG_EQ(a,b) (((a)&&(b))||(!(a)&&!(b)))
>>>
>>> This can be written more simply as
Andreas Schwab <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Jim Meyering <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Kamil Dudka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> +#define LOG_EQ(a,b) (((a)&&(b))||(!(a)&&!(b)))
>>
>> This can be written more simply as !((a) ^ (b))
>
> Only if the operands are already boolean, and then you can jus
Jim Meyering <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Kamil Dudka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> +#define LOG_EQ(a,b) (((a)&&(b))||(!(a)&&!(b)))
>
> This can be written more simply as !((a) ^ (b))
Only if the operands are already boolean, and then you can just use a == b.
Andreas.
--
Andreas Schwab, SuSE
Kamil Dudka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
...
> New patch in attachment.
Hi Kamil,
Thanks for working on this!
You'll want to print totals with --inodes (-i), too.
Please adjust formatting to use spaces before each open parenthesis
and drop the short-named "-c" option. There is a strong disincenti
Kamil Dudka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tuesday 02 September 2008 10:55:05 you wrote:
>>fsu = *force_fsu;
> I was not sure, if all supported compiler take this.
Structure assignment is part of C since even before K&R2.
http://c-faq.com/struct/firstclass.html
Andreas.
--
Andreas S
alized in main() as well.
Thank you for review. New patch in attachment.
Kamil
From 126c3f1246bc7e8eb44885b187fbcbe8b33dbbb2 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Kamil Dudka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2008 11:20:51 +0200
Subject: [PATCH] [PATCH] df: new option: --total (-c) to produce
Kamil Dudka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> @@ -296,7 +338,9 @@ show_dev (char const *disk, char const *mount_point,
>if (!stat_file)
> stat_file = mount_point ? mount_point : disk;
>
> - if (get_fs_usage (stat_file, disk, &fsu))
> + if (force_fsu)
> +memcpy(&fsu, force_fsu, sizeof(
:13:33 +0200
Subject: [PATCH] df: new option: --total (-c) to produce grand total (in the same way as du)
* src/df.c (add_uint_with_neg_flag): New function to add two integral values
with separate negation flag.
(show_dev): New parameter force_fsu to display numbers directly. Collect
summary statist
31 matches
Mail list logo
