On Wed, Apr 2, 2014 at 6:04 AM, Linda Walsh wrote:
>
>
> Greg Wooledge wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 06:14:27PM -0700, Linda Walsh wrote:
>>
>>> Does read varname <<<$(...) use process substitution?
>>>
>>
>> I wouldn't dare write it like that, because who knows how the parser
>> will treat
Greg Wooledge wrote:
On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 06:14:27PM -0700, Linda Walsh wrote:
Does read varname <<<$(...) use process substitution?
I wouldn't dare write it like that, because who knows how the parser
will treat it. I'd write it this way:
read varname <<< "$(...)"
This is a command su
On 3/31/14, 2:12 PM, Thomas Bolemann wrote:
>In bash-4.3-beta2 a new feature has been introduced under
>2. a.
>Changed message when an incremental search fails to include "failed" in
>the prompt and display the entire search string instead of just the
>last
>matching portion
On 04/01/2014 10:03 PM, Chet Ramey wrote:
On 4/1/14 1:36 PM, Ondrej Oprala wrote:
That's possible. It might also have been an attempt at further optimization
- just calling malloc if pointer == NULL, instead going through an
additional realloc call.
Either way, I find both of these code snippe
On 04/01/2014 08:21 PM, Eric Blake wrote:
On 04/01/2014 11:36 AM, Ondrej Oprala wrote:
Bruno Haible argued that the cost of a redundant if conditional is
cheaper than the cost of a function call in profiling runs, at least in
the portions of gnulib where he used that idiom. Personally, I like
On 4/1/14 1:36 PM, Ondrej Oprala wrote:
> That's possible. It might also have been an attempt at further optimization
> - just calling malloc if pointer == NULL, instead going through an
> additional realloc call.
>
> Either way, I find both of these code snippets very redundant.
Sure, they prob
On 04/01/2014 11:36 AM, Ondrej Oprala wrote:
>> Bruno Haible argued that the cost of a redundant if conditional is
>> cheaper than the cost of a function call in profiling runs, at least in
>> the portions of gnulib where he used that idiom. Personally, I like
>> getting rid of the redundant if (
On 04/01/2014 05:43 PM, Eric Blake wrote:
On 04/01/2014 09:28 AM, Ondrej Oprala wrote:
Hi,
Could someone please explain to me, why are xrealloc and xfree (or more
specifically - their parts) from lib/malloc/xmalloc.c necessary?
e.g.
if (string)
free(string);
Why is this needed? AFAIK the
On 04/01/2014 09:28 AM, Ondrej Oprala wrote:
> Hi,
> Could someone please explain to me, why are xrealloc and xfree (or more
> specifically - their parts) from lib/malloc/xmalloc.c necessary?
>
> e.g.
> if (string)
> free(string);
> Why is this needed? AFAIK the C standard specifies free(NULL
Hi,
Could someone please explain to me, why are xrealloc and xfree (or
more specifically - their parts) from lib/malloc/xmalloc.c necessary?
e.g.
if (string)
free(string);
Why is this needed? AFAIK the C standard specifies free(NULL) is
completely legal.
Also:
temp = pointer ? realloc
10 matches
Mail list logo
