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/
_______________________________________________
cvs-all@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-all
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
