Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Thu, 24 Apr 2003 05:02:17 +0200
From:      Dag-Erling Smorgrav <des@ofug.org>
To:        Alex Semenyaka <alexs@ratmir.ru>
Cc:        freebsd-standards@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: tjr@@freebsd.org, imp@freebsd.org, ru@freebsd.org
Message-ID:  <xzpu1cod2di.fsf@flood.ping.uio.no>
In-Reply-To: <20030420004639.GA52081@snark.ratmir.ru> (Alex Semenyaka's message of "Sun, 20 Apr 2003 04:46:39 %2B0400")
References:  <20030420004639.GA52081@snark.ratmir.ru>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Alex Semenyaka <alexs@ratmir.ru> writes:
> Brief description what was done: I've chanched the arithmitics in the /bin/sh
> from 32 bits to 64 bits. There are some doubts that it conforms to the
> standards: it does, I have send a quotations to -standards, there were no
> objections. Couple of people advuces me to use intmax_t and %jd - I've rewritten
> the patch, now there is those species instead of long long and %qd. The last
> question was performance, I will show the results of measurements below.

Performance is irrelevant.  Anyone who is doing so much arithmetic in
the shell that performance is an issue should take a long hard look at
dc(1).  The only issues here are 1) correctness 2) portability (long
long / %qd is not portable) and 3) standards compliance.  You can
safely ignore anyone trying to tell you otherwise.

DES
-- 
Dag-Erling Smorgrav - des@ofug.org


Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?xzpu1cod2di.fsf>