Re: gperf bug

[Andreas Schwab]

address@hidden (Morten Welinder) writes:

|> Hi,
|> 
|> when gperf 2.7 is run with the arguments
|> 
|>     gperf -c -a -E -C -t -L C++ -Z MYCLASS -H hash -N lookup -k 1-5 -T -o 
myfile.gperf
|> 
|> it will generate code like
|> 
|> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|> /* C++ code produced by gperf version 2.7 */
|> ..
|> inline unsigned int
|> MYCLASS::hash (register const char *str, register unsigned int len)
|> {
|>   ...
|> }
|> ..
|>       register int key = hash (str, len);
|>       if (key <= MAX_HASH_VALUE && key >= 0)
|> 
|> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|> 
|> Clearly, "key" should be unsigned and the wasteful test against 0 should
|> be eliminated.

A good compiler will do that anyway.

|> (And perhaps gperf should use C++ comments in C++ mode.)

What's wrong with using correct comment syntax?

Andreas.

-- 
Andreas Schwab                                  "And now for something
SuSE Labs                                        completely different."
address@hidden
SuSE GmbH, Schanzäckerstr. 10, D-90443 Nürnberg
Key fingerprint = 58CA 54C7 6D53 942B 1756  01D3 44D5 214B 8276 4ED5