Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 15:50:07 +0100 From: =?utf-8?Q?Dag-Erling_Sm=C3=B8rgrav?= <des@des.no> To: "M. Warner Losh" <imp@bsdimp.com> Cc: arch@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Code review request: small optimization to localtime.c Message-ID: <86lk8hhzs0.fsf@ds4.des.no> In-Reply-To: <20071128.151021.709401576.imp@bsdimp.com> (M. Warner Losh's message of "Wed\, 28 Nov 2007 15\:10\:21 -0700 \(MST\)") References: <20071128.151021.709401576.imp@bsdimp.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
"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 to
take a second to parse the expression and check which way the comparison
goes.
We already have a policy (unwritten as far as I know) of using explicit
comparisons for variables which are not clearly predicates, can we also
have one of *not* using explicit comparisons for those that are? And
document both cases in style(9)?
DES
--=20
Dag-Erling Sm=C3=B8rgrav - des@des.no
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?86lk8hhzs0.fsf>