On Thu, Mar 30, 2000 at 02:25:45PM +0100, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
> Vincent Lefevre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> You're right. My patch made the code bigger. By exactly one xor
> instruction on i386! But here's an alternative patch that makes the
> code smaller (but it is less obvious that this patch is safe):
I was looking at submitting a similar patch, but you beat me to it.
one difference, tho:
> --- imap.c.orig Wed Mar 8 10:01:44 2000
> +++ imap.c Thu Mar 30 14:15:02 2000
> @@ -1154,13 +1154,8 @@
> {
> char buf[LONG_STRING];
> static time_t checktime=0;
> - time_t t;
> + time_t t = 0;
>
> - /*
> - * gcc thinks it has to warn about uninitialized use
> - * of t. This is wrong.
> - */
> -
> if (ImapCheckTimeout)
> {
> t = time(NULL);
> @@ -1170,7 +1165,7 @@
> if ((ImapCheckTimeout && t >= ImapCheckTimeout)
We don't need to test for ImapCheckTimeout again.
> || ((CTX_DATA->reopen & IMAP_REOPEN_ALLOW) && (CTX_DATA->reopen &
>~IMAP_REOPEN_ALLOW)))
> {
> - if (ImapCheckTimeout) checktime += t;
> + checktime += t;
I noticed you removed it here already.
>
> CTX_DATA->check_status = 0;
> if (imap_exec (buf, sizeof (buf), CTX_DATA, "NOOP", 0) != 0)
--
John Franklin
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
ICBM: 35°48'19"N 78°46'39"W
