On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 05:48:39 +0300, Andrew W. Nosenko wrote: > On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 03:34, Dan Sommers <[email protected]> > wrote:
>> There's no need for two counters. Just use the same counter inside >> both loops and check for that counter being zero (or non-zero) at the >> end (then again, a sufficiently clever optimizer may already be doing >> that for you). > No, optimizer cannot to do that because they aren't equivalent. Just > imagine that one int (e.g. digits_before) obtained value 1 and another > overflowed to -1. This scenario will produce "true" in > digits_before+digits_after==0 check. Now imagine the only one counter. > On the same imaginable data it will be overflowed to -2 and check for > zero will return "false". Duh. I knew that. ;-) > But anyway, I see no needs in counters at all. Just because what you > need is just an boolean flag (zero vs. not zero, there were any digits > or not) ... Agreed. > By the way it far simpler for optimizer and may be handled better by it > indeed without unsafe tricks and assumptions. Premature optimization and all that. Sorry. So what's the next step? Does someone submit a bug report, or a bug report with a suggested patch, or something else? Dan _______________________________________________ xml mailing list, project page http://xmlsoft.org/ [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/xml
