On Sat, May 17, 2014 at 05:53:45PM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> On Sat, May 17, 2014 at 05:00:18PM +0200, Manuel Sch?lling wrote:
> > Initializations like 'char *foo = "bar"' will create two variables: a static
> > string and a pointer (foo) to that static string. Instead 'char foo[] =
> > "bar"'
> >
Thanks for the detailed review of my patches, guys!
I had a look at the assembler code now, too and you are right about
this.
I was misguided by the KernelJanitor's TODO list [1]. If there is
consensus the corresponding paragraph from that list should be removed.
[1]
Thanks for the detailed review of my patches, guys!
I had a look at the assembler code now, too and you are right about
this.
I was misguided by the KernelJanitor's TODO list [1]. If there is
consensus the corresponding paragraph from that list should be removed.
[1]
On Sat, May 17, 2014 at 05:53:45PM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
On Sat, May 17, 2014 at 05:00:18PM +0200, Manuel Sch?lling wrote:
Initializations like 'char *foo = bar' will create two variables: a static
string and a pointer (foo) to that static string. Instead 'char foo[] =
bar'
will declare
On Sat, May 17, 2014 at 06:21:09PM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> On Sat, May 17, 2014 at 05:44:28PM +0200, Mateusz Guzik wrote:
> > This particular function would be better of with removing this variable
> > and replacing all pairs like:
> > sprintf(dp, ...);
> > dp += strlen(...)
> >
> > with:
> > dp
On Sat, May 17, 2014 at 05:44:28PM +0200, Mateusz Guzik wrote:
> On Sat, May 17, 2014 at 05:00:18PM +0200, Manuel Schölling wrote:
> > Initializations like 'char *foo = "bar"' will create two variables: a static
> > string and a pointer (foo) to that static string. Instead 'char foo[] =
> >
On Sat, May 17, 2014 at 05:00:18PM +0200, Manuel Schölling wrote:
> Initializations like 'char *foo = "bar"' will create two variables: a static
> string and a pointer (foo) to that static string. Instead 'char foo[] = "bar"'
> will declare a single variable and will end up in shorter
> assembly
On Sat, May 17, 2014 at 05:00:18PM +0200, Manuel Schölling wrote:
> Initializations like 'char *foo = "bar"' will create two variables: a static
> string and a pointer (foo) to that static string. Instead 'char foo[] = "bar"'
> will declare a single variable and will end up in shorter
> assembly
Initializations like 'char *foo = "bar"' will create two variables: a static
string and a pointer (foo) to that static string. Instead 'char foo[] = "bar"'
will declare a single variable and will end up in shorter
assembly (according to Jeff Garzik on the KernelJanitor's TODO list).
Initializations like 'char *foo = bar' will create two variables: a static
string and a pointer (foo) to that static string. Instead 'char foo[] = bar'
will declare a single variable and will end up in shorter
assembly (according to Jeff Garzik on the KernelJanitor's TODO list).
Signed-off-by:
On Sat, May 17, 2014 at 05:00:18PM +0200, Manuel Schölling wrote:
Initializations like 'char *foo = bar' will create two variables: a static
string and a pointer (foo) to that static string. Instead 'char foo[] = bar'
will declare a single variable and will end up in shorter
assembly
On Sat, May 17, 2014 at 05:00:18PM +0200, Manuel Schölling wrote:
Initializations like 'char *foo = bar' will create two variables: a static
string and a pointer (foo) to that static string. Instead 'char foo[] = bar'
will declare a single variable and will end up in shorter
assembly
On Sat, May 17, 2014 at 05:44:28PM +0200, Mateusz Guzik wrote:
On Sat, May 17, 2014 at 05:00:18PM +0200, Manuel Schölling wrote:
Initializations like 'char *foo = bar' will create two variables: a static
string and a pointer (foo) to that static string. Instead 'char foo[] =
bar'
will
On Sat, May 17, 2014 at 06:21:09PM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
On Sat, May 17, 2014 at 05:44:28PM +0200, Mateusz Guzik wrote:
This particular function would be better of with removing this variable
and replacing all pairs like:
sprintf(dp, ...);
dp += strlen(...)
with:
dp += sprintf(dp,
14 matches
Mail list logo
