Date: Sun, 21 Mar 2004 15:13:30 +0100 From: Marc Olzheim <marcolz@stack.nl> To: Peter Jeremy <peterjeremy@optushome.com.au> Cc: Garance A Drosihn <drosih@rpi.edu> Subject: Re: Adventures with gcc: code vs object-code size Message-ID: <20040321141330.GA78596@stack.nl> In-Reply-To: <20040321084543.GA48068@server.vk2pj.dyndns.org> References: <p0602044cbc827481888c@[128.113.24.47]> <002f01c40f14$f4406540$1200a8c0@gsicomp.on.ca> <20040321084543.GA48068@server.vk2pj.dyndns.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, Mar 21, 2004 at 07:45:43PM +1100, Peter Jeremy wrote: > But (IMHO) this is a lot less clear than the former code (thought I admit > I'm guilty of doing this quite a lot in my code). Note that a modern C > compiler is free to convert > strcpy(elemcopy, ":") == 0 > into > elemcopy[0] == ':' && elemcopy[1] == '\0' > assuming the relevant header (<string.h>) is in scope. (I was under the > impression that gcc did this). You're mixing up strcpy() with strcmp(), but you are right, unless -fno-builtin is specified. Marc
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040321141330.GA78596>