On Sun, Feb 7, 2016 at 7:17 PM, Andreas Schwab wrote:
> Karthik Nayak writes:
>
>> + if ((( arg && len == arg - sp) ||
>> +(!arg && len == ep - sp )) &&
>
> len == (arg ? arg : ep) - sp &&
This is better I feel. Thank You
--
Regards,
Kar
Karthik Nayak writes:
> + if ((( arg && len == arg - sp) ||
> +(!arg && len == ep - sp )) &&
len == (arg ? arg : ep) - sp &&
Andreas.
--
Andreas Schwab, sch...@linux-m68k.org
GPG Key fingerprint = 58CA 54C7 6D53 942B 1756 01D3 44D5 214
On Sun, Feb 7, 2016 at 4:01 AM, Karthik Nayak wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 7, 2016 at 12:03 PM, Eric Sunshine
> wrote:
>> On Sat, Feb 6, 2016 at 10:15 AM, Karthik Nayak wrote:
>>> I think the code needs to be changed to:
>>>
>>> - if ((!arg || len == arg - sp) &&
>>> + if ((
On Sun, Feb 7, 2016 at 12:33 PM, Eric Sunshine wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 6, 2016 at 9:36 AM, Karthik Nayak wrote:
>> On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 3:49 AM, Eric Sunshine
>> wrote:
>>> On Sun, Jan 31, 2016 at 12:42 PM, Karthik Nayak
>>> wrote:
- const char *formatp = strchr(sp, ':');
>>
On Sun, Feb 7, 2016 at 12:03 PM, Eric Sunshine wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 6, 2016 at 10:15 AM, Karthik Nayak wrote:
>> On Sun, Jan 31, 2016 at 11:12 PM, Karthik Nayak
>> wrote:
>>> @@ -138,10 +140,9 @@ int parse_ref_filter_atom(const char *atom, const char
>>> *ep)
>>> * shouldn't b
On Sat, Feb 6, 2016 at 9:36 AM, Karthik Nayak wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 3:49 AM, Eric Sunshine wrote:
>> On Sun, Jan 31, 2016 at 12:42 PM, Karthik Nayak
>> wrote:
>>> - const char *formatp = strchr(sp, ':');
>>> - if (!formatp || ep < formatp)
>>> -
On Sat, Feb 6, 2016 at 10:15 AM, Karthik Nayak wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 31, 2016 at 11:12 PM, Karthik Nayak wrote:
>> @@ -138,10 +140,9 @@ int parse_ref_filter_atom(const char *atom, const char
>> *ep)
>> * shouldn't be used for checking against the valid_atom
>> *
On Sun, Jan 31, 2016 at 11:12 PM, Karthik Nayak wrote:
> @@ -138,10 +140,9 @@ int parse_ref_filter_atom(const char *atom, const char
> *ep)
> * shouldn't be used for checking against the valid_atom
> * table.
> */
> - const char *fo
On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 3:49 AM, Eric Sunshine wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 31, 2016 at 12:42 PM, Karthik Nayak wrote:
>> Parsing atoms is done in populate_value(), this is repetitive and
>> hence expensive. Introduce a parsing function which would let us parse
>> atoms beforehand and store the required d
Eric Sunshine writes:
>> @@ -138,10 +140,9 @@ int parse_ref_filter_atom(const char *atom, const char
>> *ep)
>> * shouldn't be used for checking against the valid_atom
>> * table.
>> */
>> - const char *formatp = strchr(sp, ':');
>
On Sun, Jan 31, 2016 at 12:42 PM, Karthik Nayak wrote:
> Parsing atoms is done in populate_value(), this is repetitive and
> hence expensive. Introduce a parsing function which would let us parse
> atoms beforehand and store the required details into the 'used_atom'
> structure for further usage.
Parsing atoms is done in populate_value(), this is repetitive and
hence expensive. Introduce a parsing function which would let us parse
atoms beforehand and store the required details into the 'used_atom'
structure for further usage.
Helped-by: Eric Sunshine
Signed-off-by: Karthik Nayak
---
re
12 matches
Mail list logo
