On Mon, 5 Jan 2004 19:09:23 -0800, jw schultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 05, 2004 at 01:44:37AM -0600, John Van Essen wrote:
....
>> I did that differently (and more simply, I think). Changed only one line
>> and added two lines:
>>
>> @@ -24,8 +24,11 @@
>> extern int verbose;
>>
>> #if SUPPORT_HARD_LINKS
>> -static int hlink_compare(struct file_struct *f1, struct file_struct *f2)
>> +static int hlink_compare(struct file_struct **f1p, struct file_struct **f2p)
>> {
>> + struct file_struct *f1 = *f1p;
>> + struct file_struct *f2 = *f2p;
>> +
>> if (!S_ISREG(f1->mode) && !S_ISREG(f2->mode))
>> return 0;
>> if (!S_ISREG(f1->mode))
>
> My changes were patterned after file_compare(). The
> compiler should produce approximately the same code but
> your's is a little more readable. If we go with yours i'd
> suggest we update file_compare() to match. Consistancy of
> code is more important that patch size.
An optimizing compiler should, indeed, produce approximately the
same code. Tweaking file_compare to make it more readable and
consistent with hlink_compare is a good idea. Go for it. :)
--
John Van Essen Univ of MN Alumnus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--
To unsubscribe or change options: http://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/rsync
Before posting, read: http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
