Messages in this thread |  | | Subject | Re: [PATCH] random.c bugfix | From | Robert Love <> | Date | 27 Oct 2001 02:35:55 -0400 |
| |
On Sat, 2001-10-27 at 02:21, Andreas Dilger wrote: > OK, my bad. At least the random variable-name cleanups let you SEE where > we are supposed to be using word sizes and byte sizes. Even you were > confused about it ;-)
I went over your original patch good; I am surprised I missed this. :/ Nonetheless, only with the new cleanups could anyone spot this.
> Well, this is a matter of taste. With my code, it is correct regardless > of how tmp is declared, while with your code you assume tmp is TMP_BUF_SIZE > words, and that it is declared with a 4-byte type. Both ways are resolved > at compile time, so using "sizeof(tmp)/4" or "sizeof(tmp)*8" doesn't add > any run-time overhead.
I think I prefer your sizeof() method, if for nothing else but that we can keep it consistent -- we can always take the sizeof a variable and not everything has its size in a define.
Furthermore, sizeof(tmp) certainly means "size of the variable temp" while TMP_BUF_SIZE could be the size of anything related to tmp -- the buffer it points to (if it were a pointer), a buffer in it (if it were a struct), etc. Since it all compiles to the same, it is not a huge issue. Just my two bits...
> I don't have a strong opinion either way, if Linus and/or Alan have a > preference to do it one way or the other.
...but I'm not Alan or Linus ;)
Robert Love
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
|  |