diff for duplicates of <200712072258.19331.arnd@arndb.de> diff --git a/a/1.txt b/N1/1.txt index 5b9c850..acfdfe3 100644 --- a/a/1.txt +++ b/N1/1.txt @@ -2,24 +2,21 @@ On Friday 07 December 2007, Balbir Singh wrote: > Balbir Singh wrote: > > Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > >> On Sat, 8 Dec 2007, Balbir Singh wrote: -> >>> +=A0=A0=A0if (strstr(p, "fake=3D")) -> >>> +=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0cmdline =3D p + 5;=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0= -=A0=A0=A0/* 5 is faster than strlen("fake=3D") */ -> >> Really? My gcc is smart enough to replace the `strlen("fake=3D")' by 5= -, even +> >>> + if (strstr(p, "fake=")) +> >>> + cmdline = p + 5; /* 5 is faster than strlen("fake=") */ +> >> Really? My gcc is smart enough to replace the `strlen("fake=")' by 5, even > >> without -O. > >> -> >=20 +> > > > Thanks for pointing that out, but I am surprised that a compiler would > > interpret library routines like strlen. -> >=20 ->=20 +> > +> > I just tested it and it turns out that you are right. I'll go hunt to > see where gcc gets its magic powers from. ->=20 +> -Even if it wasn't: Why the heck would you want to optimize this? The functi= -on +Even if it wasn't: Why the heck would you want to optimize this? The function is run _once_ at boot time and the object code gets thrown away afterwards! Arnd <>< diff --git a/a/content_digest b/N1/content_digest index 0ae486f..2721cf1 100644 --- a/a/content_digest +++ b/N1/content_digest @@ -14,26 +14,23 @@ "> Balbir Singh wrote:\n" "> > Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:\n" "> >> On Sat, 8 Dec 2007, Balbir Singh wrote:\n" - "> >>> +=A0=A0=A0if (strstr(p, \"fake=3D\"))\n" - "> >>> +=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0cmdline =3D p + 5;=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=\n" - "=A0=A0=A0/* 5 is faster than strlen(\"fake=3D\") */\n" - "> >> Really? My gcc is smart enough to replace the `strlen(\"fake=3D\")' by 5=\n" - ", even\n" + "> >>> +\302\240\302\240\302\240if (strstr(p, \"fake=\"))\n" + "> >>> +\302\240\302\240\302\240\302\240\302\240\302\240\302\240\302\240\302\240\302\240\302\240cmdline = p + 5;\302\240\302\240\302\240\302\240\302\240\302\240\302\240\302\240/* 5 is faster than strlen(\"fake=\") */\n" + "> >> Really? My gcc is smart enough to replace the `strlen(\"fake=\")' by 5, even\n" "> >> without -O.\n" "> >>\n" - "> >=20\n" + "> > \n" "> > Thanks for pointing that out, but I am surprised that a compiler would\n" "> > interpret library routines like strlen.\n" - "> >=20\n" - ">=20\n" + "> > \n" + "> \n" "> I just tested it and it turns out that you are right. I'll go hunt to\n" "> see where gcc gets its magic powers from.\n" - ">=20\n" + "> \n" "\n" - "Even if it wasn't: Why the heck would you want to optimize this? The functi=\n" - "on\n" + "Even if it wasn't: Why the heck would you want to optimize this? The function\n" "is run _once_ at boot time and the object code gets thrown away afterwards!\n" "\n" "\tArnd <><" -71711863070971c53fcdab77f99cce907267ca7ce1edac7b204e0679f665971c +05c6187a15bec3a02f2759ec921dee58d7b0fada1d945c685cf4276915b5d924
This is an external index of several public inboxes, see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror all data and code used by this external index.