Yes- I think I agree with you on this.
On Thu, 11 Oct 2001, Luigi Rizzo wrote:
> >
> > Maybe bcmp is right. I believe having IS_ETHER_BROADCAST is too
> > useful a macro
>
> yes, i mean leave it as a macro which calls bcmp, and
> let the compiler handle the issue.
>
> #define IS_ETHER_BROA
>
> Maybe bcmp is right. I believe having IS_ETHER_BROADCAST is too
> useful a macro
yes, i mean leave it as a macro which calls bcmp, and
let the compiler handle the issue.
#define IS_ETHER_BROADCAST(a) (!bcmp(a, "\377\377\377\377\377\377", 6))
luigi
To Unsubscribe: send mail t
Maybe bcmp is right. I believe having IS_ETHER_BROADCAST is too
useful a macro
On Thu, 11 Oct 2001, Luigi Rizzo wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Thu, 11 Oct 2001, Luigi Rizzo wrote:
> >
> > > I guess it might be marginally more efficient to
> > > call bcmp() (and rely on it being optimized), or do 3
>
>
> On Thu, 11 Oct 2001, Luigi Rizzo wrote:
>
> > I guess it might be marginally more efficient to
> > call bcmp() (and rely on it being optimized), or do 3
> > comparisons with unsigned short *
> >
> > > +#define IS_ETHER_BROADCAST(a) ( \
> > > + ((unsigned short *)(a))[0] == 0x
On Thu, 11 Oct 2001, Luigi Rizzo wrote:
> I guess it might be marginally more efficient to
> call bcmp() (and rely on it being optimized), or do 3
> comparisons with unsigned short *
>
> > +#define IS_ETHER_BROADCAST(a) ( \
> > + ((unsigned short *)(a))[0] == 0x && \
> > + ((un
I guess it might be marginally more efficient to
call bcmp() (and rely on it being optimized), or do 3
comparisons with unsigned short *
> +#define IS_ETHER_BROADCAST(a) ( \
> + ((unsigned short *)(a))[0] == 0x && \
> + ((unsigned short *)(a))[1] == 0x && \
> + ((unsign
Fix the silly warning:
Index: bridge.h
===
RCS file: /home/ncvs/src/sys/net/bridge.h,v
retrieving revision 1.8
diff -u -r1.8 bridge.h
--- bridge.h2001/10/05 05:45:26 1.8
+++ bridge.h2001/10/11 18:11:51
@@ -92,8 +92,17 @@
