On Thursday, March 14, 2013 4:21:02 pm Pawel Jakub Dawidek wrote: > On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 10:11:07AM -0700, Chuck Swiger wrote: > > Hi-- > > > > On Mar 14, 2013, at 9:50 AM, John Baldwin wrote: > > > On Thursday, March 14, 2013 12:29:58 pm Pawel Jakub Dawidek wrote: > > > > [ ... ] > > >> Heh, I did consider that as well, but here you check errno twice, > > >> instead of once. Guys, is there anything wrong with the patch I > > >> proposed? > > > > > > I'm sure the compiler can work that out just fine and it should do whatever > > > is most readable to the programmer. I don't care either way. > > > > Strong +1. Having the code be correct and readable is much more important > > then trying to hand-optimize a single-digit # of integer compares in > > startup code that usually runs ~once per process. > > Well, I think my version is more obvious, just the diff is larger. > Anyway, I think enough has been said already about this crucial change:) Yours is fine, commit it already. -- John BaldwinReceived on Thu Mar 14 2013 - 19:35:42 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:40:35 UTC