On 29/06/2025 13:17, Pádraig Brady wrote:
On 29/06/2025 05:25, Paul Eggert wrote:
> od: omit some duplicate code
> On x86-64 (for example) print_long, print_long_long, and
> print_intmax all behave identically, so give GCC enough info so
> that it generates code for just one of these fun
On 2025-06-29 05:17, Pádraig Brady wrote:
If we want the compiler to just apply Dead Code Elimination here,
then it may be best to push/pop ignoring that warning ?
Or, since GCC didn't complain about similar code elsewhere, we can
change the complained-about code to look more like the code els
As sometimes happens (in my case, while walking the dog) I thought of
one or two more little problems in that area, and installed the attached
patches to fix them. The first patch merely refactors; the second one
does the fix; the third one adds test cases.From 617220e970f267fbeea80d5cd8b62aec2b
Jim Meyering wrote:
> That is an option no GNU system needs, since they've all had tac since
> before 1992-era textutils.
But 'tac' does not have a line-number-limit argument.
The POSIX rationale [1] has
"While both
tail -n$n | tac
and
tac | head -n$n
can be used to output a fi
On 2025-06-29 12:59, Pádraig Brady wrote:
I've manually suppressed that error instance in our coverity instance.
Maybe the change I just installed removed the need for that manual
suppression?
On 29/06/2025 05:25, Paul Eggert wrote:
> od: omit some duplicate code
> On x86-64 (for example) print_long, print_long_long, and
> print_intmax all behave identically, so give GCC enough info so
> that it generates code for just one of these functions.
> * src/od.c (enum size_spec): Arrange for
On Sat, Jun 28, 2025 at 9:25 PM Paul Eggert wrote:
> On 2025-06-24 18:31, Jim Meyering wrote:
> > That goes way back. I think od.c
> > was the second stand-alone program I contributed to coreutils (first
> > was tr). The earliest email I still have that mentions it is from
> > 1997-01 prior to tex
On Sun, Jun 29, 2025 at 5:18 AM Pádraig Brady wrote:
> On 29/06/2025 05:25, Paul Eggert wrote:
>
> > od: omit some duplicate code
> > On x86-64 (for example) print_long, print_long_long, and
> > print_intmax all behave identically, so give GCC enough info so
> > that it generates code for just
