[tz] suggestions for potential code improvements?
eggert at cs.ucla.edu
Fri Jul 24 00:09:09 UTC 2015
On 07/23/2015 07:50 AM, Kees Dekker wrote:
> 1.Why do you not always initialize the variables that are now passed
> to the INITIALIZE macro (see date.c/localtime.c/zic.c/private.h)? It
> has (almost) no impact on performance and prevents strict compilers to
> complain about (potentially) non-initialized variables.
Thanks for the careful reading of the code. Although INITIALIZE does
improve performance very slightly, it is not primarily about
performance. Mainly, it documents initialization that exists only to
pacify compilers like GCC that would otherwise complain. If the code
always initialized variables even when not needed, the code would become
more confusing to human readers, as we'd have to puzzle out why the
initialization is present even though it is not used.
If this is a problem in your environment, you can compile with -Dlint.
I often build this way:
as this provides -Dlint automatically.
> I don’t know whether all sprintf() implementations for all operating
> systems respect the width/size specifier and allow non-0 terminated
All sprintf implementations work that way. This has been required by
the C standard since C89 and is true for all C libraries in widespread
I tried rewriting asctime.c along the lines that you suggested (see the
attached patch). On my platform (Fedora 21 x86-64, GCC 5.1.0) this made
the zdump executable a tiny bit larger (7 bytes, for a new total of
33077 bytes). The wday_name and mon_name arrays are not likely to used
elsewhere accidentally, as they're private to asctime_r and do not
escape. Although it's not a big deal either way, it should be OK to
leave this code alone.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 1487 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the tz