Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2020 10:08:44 -0700 From: Cy Schubert <Cy.Schubert@cschubert.com> To: Ian Lepore <ian@freebsd.org> Cc: Toomas Soome <tsoome@FreeBSD.org>, src-committers@freebsd.org, svn-src-all@freebsd.org, svn-src-head@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r362217 - head/stand/common Message-ID: <202006161708.05GH8ibS019561@slippy.cwsent.com> In-Reply-To: <55903c38d363aef2a6f6d0075dd4526b86d51258.camel@freebsd.org> References: <202006160705.05G753T4057972@repo.freebsd.org> <55903c38d363aef2a6f6d0075dd4526b86d51258.camel@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message <55903c38d363aef2a6f6d0075dd4526b86d51258.camel@freebsd.org>, Ian Le pore writes: > On Tue, 2020-06-16 at 07:05 +0000, Toomas Soome wrote: > > Author: tsoome > > Date: Tue Jun 16 07:05:03 2020 > > New Revision: 362217 > > URL: https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/base/362217 > > > > Log: > > loader: variable i is unused without MBR/GPT support built in > > > > Because i is only used as index in for loop, declare it in for > > statement. > > > > As much as I prefer doing it this way, style(9) doesn't allow for > variable declarations inside a for() statement (or even inside a local > block, which is just too 1980s for me, but it is still our standard). Doesn't this use stack for a shorter period of time or does the compiler optimize this, making this change moot? The tradeoff is a few extra bytes of stack for a longer period of time vs a few extra instructions incrementing and decrementing the stack pointer. -- Cheers, Cy Schubert <Cy.Schubert@cschubert.com> FreeBSD UNIX: <cy@FreeBSD.org> Web: https://FreeBSD.org NTP: <cy@nwtime.org> Web: https://nwtime.org The need of the many outweighs the greed of the few.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?202006161708.05GH8ibS019561>