Re: Imminent bugfix release (1.97.1)

[Darron Black]

Duboucher Thomas wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Robert Millan a écrit :
>   
> > On Mon, Nov 09, 2009 at 10:43:48PM +0100, Duboucher Thomas wrote:
> >     
> > >         Well, the only way to solve that problem would be IMHO to add a limit
> > > to the size of s2, and use this maximum size as an end condition for the
> > > 'for' statement. Any better idea? :)
> > >       
> > We have a maximum line read size anyway.  If we do this, we might as
> > well make that limit global so that the macro can be shared with
> > this routine.
> >
> >     
>
> Sounds good to me. :)
> Any ideas for renaming s1 and s2?
>
> Thomas.
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
>
> iEYEARECAAYFAkr4m8EACgkQBV7eXqefhqj9SgCgjHomnoIkzzu5WuTCZQVcB/8t
> cwcAn1EkevCL3PXGlIuhLzFPlER9fXD3
> =okR/
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Grub-devel mailing list
> address@hidden
> http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/grub-devel
>   
Hello,

I'd be concerned about (s1 != s2).  Depending on how efficiently this 
compiles, could not branch prediction make this faster for match vs. not 
match, etc?.  I'd be worried about all the ways (and future ways) 
compilers might help us and introduce time differences.

I'd feel most comfortable with the time delay, but why not stick to 
complete artithmetic?


int i;
int acc = 0;

for(i=0;i<MAX_LEN;i++,s1++,s2++)
{
   acc |= (*s1 ^ *s2);

   if (*s1 == 0)
      break;
}

return (acc == 0);


Also, these strcmp functions don't properly return < or >.  Just = / 
!=.  However, my context being so new is quite limited.


Darron