Hello,
I just remembered this thing from an embedded 16bit CPU.
Why would you do
unsigned char XXX :1
and not
unsigned int XXX :1
I think the latter may benefit code size (a tiny bit)
because it avoids an integer promotion, at least on some platforms.
Kind regards,
Kurt
On Sun,
On Mon, Jul 08, 2013 at 09:47:10AM +0200, Kurt Van Dijck wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I just remembered this thing from an embedded 16bit CPU.
>
> Why would you do
> unsigned char XXX :1
> and not
> unsigned int XXX :1
>
> I think the latter may benefit code size (a tiny bit)
> because it av
Hi,
An updated version of the previous patch based on the feedback.
Thanks,
stateless
>From b3ca3b5ca35f368ab81ae5f6ce3cfbfd7089ef49 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: sin
Date: Sun, 7 Jul 2013 15:29:45 +0100
Subject: [PATCH v2] Add crypt.[ch] and update md5sum and sha1sum
Factor out the code from
diff --git a/surf.c b/surf.c
index 53dda18..0f9b032 100644
--- a/surf.c
+++ b/surf.c
@@ -865,6 +865,8 @@ newwindow(Client *c, const Arg *arg, gboolean noembed) {
cmd[i++] = "-s";
if(showxid)
cmd[i++] = "-x";
+ cmd[i++] = "-c";
+ cmd[i++] = cookief
Oops, that introduces a bug because I forgot to increase the buffer size.
Let's try that again:
diff --git a/surf.c b/surf.c
index 53dda18..939a06f 100644
--- a/surf.c
+++ b/surf.c
@@ -843,7 +843,7 @@ newclient(void) {
static void
newwindow(Client *c, const Arg *arg, gboolean noembed) {
