On Sun, 03 Jan 2021 17:51:56 +0100, Theo Buehler wrote:
> Thanks. Here's the diff rebased on top of -current. This is
>
> ok tb
OK millert@ as well if you'd like to do the honors.
- todd
On Sun, Jan 03, 2021 at 04:45:30PM +, Miod Vallat wrote:
> > Is there a reason not to do
> >
> > return (cs->ptr[(uch)c] & cs->mask) != 0;
> >
> > This would allow us to get rid of the !! construct in regcomp.c
>
> Why not. What about that?
Thanks. Here's the diff rebased on top of -cur
> Is there a reason not to do
>
> return (cs->ptr[(uch)c] & cs->mask) != 0;
>
> This would allow us to get rid of the !! construct in regcomp.c
Why not. What about that?
Index: regcomp.c
===
RCS file: /OpenBSD/src/lib/libc/re
On Sat, Jan 02, 2021 at 08:33:51PM +, Miod Vallat wrote:
> That code was written before inline functions were supported by
> compilers; now that they are even part of the language standard, turn
> macros into inline functions so that there is no need to document in
> comments that they will eva
On Sat, 02 Jan 2021 20:33:51 +, Miod Vallat wrote:
> That code was written before inline functions were supported by
> compilers; now that they are even part of the language standard, turn
> macros into inline functions so that there is no need to document in
> comments that they will evaluate
That code was written before inline functions were supported by
compilers; now that they are even part of the language standard, turn
macros into inline functions so that there is no need to document in
comments that they will evaluate their arguments multiple times.
(one may consider switching th
