On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 11:48:11PM +0800, Jin Yao wrote:
SNIP
> +
> static int counts_str_build(char *bf, int bfsize,
> u64 branch_count, u64 predicted_count,
> u64 abort_count, u64 cycles_count,
> u64 iter_count, u64 samples_count)
> {
> - double predicted_percent = 0.0;
> - const char *null_str = "";
> - char iter_str[32];
> - char cycle_str[32];
> - char *istr, *cstr;
> u64 cycles;
> + int printed = 0, i = 0;
I like it, but it looks like the previous code displayed those
bits in another order.. I managed to catch this one:
1337c1337
< --0.53%--menu_select menu.c:218 (iterations:6 predicted:0.0%)
---
> --0.53%--menu_select menu.c:218 (predicted:0.0% iterations:6)
I think we better keep the current order, which seems
to be the goal of the original code as well
this function is perfect candidate for automated test ;-)
(something like we did in tests/kmod-path.c)
thanks,
jirka
