Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2007 01:48:19 +0300 From: Andrey Chernov <ache@nagual.pp.ru> To: Juli Mallett <juli@clockworksquid.com> Cc: cvs-src@FreeBSD.ORG, Alexey Dokuchaev <danfe@FreeBSD.ORG>, src-committers@FreeBSD.ORG, cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/include _ctype.h Message-ID: <20071031224818.GA91246@nagual.pp.ru> In-Reply-To: <20071031224313.GA18285@toxic.magnesium.net> References: <200710272232.l9RMWSbK072082@repoman.freebsd.org> <20071030200331.GA29309@toxic.magnesium.net> <20071031215526.GC89932@nagual.pp.ru> <20071031223349.GA552@FreeBSD.org> <20071031223727.GB90994@nagual.pp.ru> <20071031224313.GA18285@toxic.magnesium.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, Oct 31, 2007 at 12:43:13PM -1000, Juli Mallett wrote:
> > 1. Reader-friendly version generates long code when absolutely no
> > optimization used in compiler (for some reason f.e. to avoid optimization
> > bugs).
>
> So if someone is trying to avoid compiler optimization bugs we should subject
> them to human optimization bugs instead? :)
Not sure I understand your motto. There is no human optimization bugs,
just attempt to save what we can to save when no optimization (or another
non-smart compiler) is used.
> > 2. It also breaks common style ctype using for is{w}ascii(). If revert
> > this, is{w}ascii() should be rewritted too.
>
> That seems reasonable.
Well, I don't want to fight here. If there general consensus that we
should prefer human-readable code for __isctype(), isascii() and
iswascii() in trade for some edge cases, let it be so.
--
http://ache.pp.ru/
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20071031224818.GA91246>