Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 08:41:08 -0700 (MST) From: "M. Warner Losh" <imp@bsdimp.com> To: des@des.no Cc: arch@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Code review request: small optimization to localtime.c Message-ID: <20071129.084108.-713549098.imp@bsdimp.com> In-Reply-To: <86lk8hhzs0.fsf@ds4.des.no> References: <20071128.151021.709401576.imp@bsdimp.com> <86lk8hhzs0.fsf@ds4.des.no>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message: <86lk8hhzs0.fsf@ds4.des.no> Dag-Erling_Sm=F8rgrav <des@des.no> writes: : "M. Warner Losh" <imp@bsdimp.com> writes: : > Please find enclosed some small optimizations. [...] : = : almost completely unrelated, but while you're at it: : = : > if (__isthreaded !=3D 0) { : = : __isthreaded is clearly (by its name) a predicate, comparing it : explicitly to 0 is redundant and disrupts my flow of thought when : reading the code. Instead of just reading "if is threaded", I have t= o : take a second to parse the expression and check which way the compari= son : goes. : = : We already have a policy (unwritten as far as I know) of using explic= it : comparisons for variables which are not clearly predicates, can we al= so : have one of *not* using explicit comparisons for those that are? And= : document both cases in style(9)? True, but very Brucian in the nature of the comment: I didn't change this in existing code. :-) I'll take a look at this sort of thing as well. Warner
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20071129.084108.-713549098.imp>