|
Message-ID: <alpine.LNX.2.20.1603052028190.31711@monopod.intra.ispras.ru> Date: Sat, 5 Mar 2016 20:30:46 +0300 (MSK) From: Alexander Monakov <amonakov@...ras.ru> To: musl@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] micro-optimize __procfdname On Sat, 5 Mar 2016, Alexander Monakov wrote: > There's an option of returning a struct containing both a buffer and a > pointer, but it's a bit worse code-size-wise and may be too magic: > > struct procfdname_ret { > char *ptr, buf[procfdsize]; > } __procfdname_impl(unsigned fd); > > #define procfdname(fd) __procfdname_impl(fd).ptr > > ... and in __procfdname_impl assign a pointer to last filled position in > retval.buf to retval.ptr. Rich explained on IRC that it's not correct (thanks!), and I don't see a way to unbreak it. Sorry for the noise. Alexander
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use? Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia and check out these guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.