On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 10:46:41AM +, sin wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 11:37:46AM +0100, Silvan Jegen wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 10:16 AM, Roberto E. Vargas Caballero
> > wrote:
> > >> I would still go for the function-pointer-less version of the
> > >> code since it actually is on
On Thu, 16 Jan 2014 11:37:46 +0100
Silvan Jegen wrote:
> Does anyone else have any strong feelings one way or the other?
I prefer the version _with_ the function-pointer, too.
Linking against musl shows that the biggest impact still resides in the
standard library-code itself.
--
FRIGN
On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 11:37:46AM +0100, Silvan Jegen wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 10:16 AM, Roberto E. Vargas Caballero
> wrote:
> >> I would still go for the function-pointer-less version of the
> >> code since it actually is one line shorter, I think. The second,
> >> function-pointer-less
On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 10:16 AM, Roberto E. Vargas Caballero
wrote:
>> I would still go for the function-pointer-less version of the
>> code since it actually is one line shorter, I think. The second,
>> function-pointer-less version of the code can be found below.
>
> I like more the version wit
On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 1:41 AM, Szabolcs Nagy wrote:
> * Silvan Jegen [2014-01-15 22:32:28 +0100]:
>> On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 09:36:07PM +0100, Szabolcs Nagy wrote:
>> > > +handleescapes(char *s)
>> > > +{
>> > > + switch(*s) {
>> > > + case 'n':
>> > > + *s = '\x0A';
>> > > + br
> Gosh, where did I say I was too lazy? I applied the patch and
> reported back, did I not? Are you blaming me for continuing to use
> the software that best fits my needs?
Of course no, but it is a bit impolite to come to the place where st
is developed and say "Don't try to fix your program, I
> By no means was this any serious benchmarking but eliminating the function
> pointer did not seem to make an obvious difference.
Good job
> I would still go for the function-pointer-less version of the
> code since it actually is one line shorter, I think. The second,
> function-pointer-les
> I changed how height of region to update is being calculated, it should
> work properly now.
I'll apply it. Thanks
--
Roberto E. Vargas Caballero
