This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: [rfa] one-liner in lex.c

From: Zack Weinberg <zack at codesourcery dot com>
To: Eric Christopher <echristo at redhat dot com>
Cc: Michael Snyder <msnyder at redhat dot com>, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
Date: Thu, 09 Sep 2004 11:47:51 -0700
Subject: Re: [rfa] one-liner in lex.c
References: <002101c49697$e722c460$e51910ac@msnyder8600><1094755007.2696.10.camel@localhost.localdomain>

Eric Christopher <echristo@redhat.com> writes:

> On Thu, 2004-09-09 at 11:07, Michael Snyder wrote:
>> Hi folks,
>> 
>> Looks like your patch submission process is fairly similar to gdb's...
>> 
>> Adding this 'else' to the inner loop in _cpp_clean_line seems pretty 
>> obvious.
>> Since it's on the critical path, it might even yield a trivial performance 
>> win.
>
> As Paul said, there's no performance win here that I can see, but for
> clarity the else should probably be there.

Speaking with my cpplib maintainer hat on, I actually prefer *not* to
have an else there.  It makes me think that maybe there's some way
control can get past the break statement.

zw

Follow-Ups:
- Re: [rfa] one-liner in lex.c
  - From: Eric Christopher

References:
- [rfa] one-liner in lex.c
  - From: Michael Snyder
- Re: [rfa] one-liner in lex.c
  - From: Eric Christopher

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]