Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 05:02:17 +0200 From: Dag-Erling Smorgrav <des@ofug.org> To: Alex Semenyaka <alexs@ratmir.ru> Cc: freebsd-standards@freebsd.org Subject: Re: tjr@@freebsd.org, imp@freebsd.org, ru@freebsd.org Message-ID: <xzpu1cod2di.fsf@flood.ping.uio.no> In-Reply-To: <20030420004639.GA52081@snark.ratmir.ru> (Alex Semenyaka's message of "Sun, 20 Apr 2003 04:46:39 %2B0400") References: <20030420004639.GA52081@snark.ratmir.ru>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Alex Semenyaka <alexs@ratmir.ru> writes: > Brief description what was done: I've chanched the arithmitics in the /bin/sh > from 32 bits to 64 bits. There are some doubts that it conforms to the > standards: it does, I have send a quotations to -standards, there were no > objections. Couple of people advuces me to use intmax_t and %jd - I've rewritten > the patch, now there is those species instead of long long and %qd. The last > question was performance, I will show the results of measurements below. Performance is irrelevant. Anyone who is doing so much arithmetic in the shell that performance is an issue should take a long hard look at dc(1). The only issues here are 1) correctness 2) portability (long long / %qd is not portable) and 3) standards compliance. You can safely ignore anyone trying to tell you otherwise. DES -- Dag-Erling Smorgrav - des@ofug.org
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?xzpu1cod2di.fsf>