On Sun, Jul 25, 2021 at 4:59 PM Len Baker len.baker@gmx.com wrote:
On Sat, Jul 24, 2021 at 11:21:04PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
On Sat, Jul 24, 2021 at 7:05 PM Len Baker len.baker@gmx.com wrote:
...
char msg[128];128 / 4 = 32. So, this buffer is enough to debug print only up to 32 bytes. Hence %*ph replacement won't cut output earlier than requested.
I'm sorry, but I don't understand what you are trying to explain. Moreover, with the "0x%02X " in the sprintf followed by the strcat, the msg buffer can print 128/5 values (25 hex values).
The %*ph replacement can print up to 64 bytes, so I don't see any problem here.
Right. That's what I am trying to say and the hint here is to combine this part into a phrase in the commit message in the next version of the patch.
...
for (j = i + 1; par->init_sequence[j] >= 0; j++);Why is i + 1 initial for the j? You may rather access the 'i + 1 + j'th element in the array...
...
par->init_sequence[i], j - i - 1,...and get rid of the ' - i -1' part here.
Yes, it was the first idea but I prefer this method since we save aritmethic operations. In other words, if I use what you suggest, the index for par->init_sequence is calculated as a "sum" every iteration. But if the performance is not an issue and you believe that the above is more clear, I have no problem. What do you prefer?
I prefer my variant and I believe the compilers nowadays are clever enough to understand this. Have you tried to compile and compare the real assembly?