DJ Bernstein's str library

[Peter Davies]

Hi all,

Plagued by the (to me) non-obvious functionality of DJB's str.h library, I
started looking at the source and what I saw took a while to make sense.

Each function runs an infinite loop, which iterates though a char* - in
order to search for needles or calculate a string length or whatever. What
got me was that each of the infinite loops held 4 identical statements:

for (;;) {
if (!*t) break; if (*t == ch) break; ++t;
if (!*t) break; if (*t == ch) break; ++t;
if (!*t) break; if (*t == ch) break; ++t;
if (!*t) break; if (*t == ch) break; ++t;
}
(in str_chr.c) and

for (;;) {
if (!*t) return t - s; ++t;
if (!*t) return t - s; ++t;
if (!*t) return t - s; ++t;
if (!*t) return t - s; ++t;
}
(in str_len.c)

Does anyone have any ideas as to why this is done? All I can think of is
that 4 chars=32bits and that nicely fills a register.

--
Peter Davies

[Ian Malone]

Poldie wrote:

But now there is a class
of users (we'll call them "googlers") that are wearing these funny weird
glasses

There is also a class of users (we'll call them "net nerds") who spend

Googlers is a better pun.
an inordinate amount of time on the internet, and who seem to suffer
delusions of grandeur which make it very very important to them that
every last character they type is preserved, in perfect context, for
all eternity, and the very thought that some people might be treating
the odd thread in the odd group with less than complete seriousness and
simply trying to answer a poster's question is just beyond the pale.

Actually, it's exactly the opposite. News servers throw away old
posts, google keeps them. If someone replys to a thread from last
week without context I haven't a clue what they're talking about
(since I use thunderbird and a news server). I'm not going to
bother looking for the context in google, because it will often
be a waste of time, so I ignore it.

Remember that posts are write once read many. The normal rule of
good writing therefore applys; people won't read what you have
written unless you make it easy for them.

(And, finally, odds-on the poster will remember what they wrote;
no-one else will. If you want a conversation rather than a
discussion there's always email.)

--
imalone

[Kenny McCormack]

In article <pa************ *************** *@yahoo.co.uk>,
Peter Davies <pe******@yahoo .co.uk> wrote:
....

Note that you are not the first to complain about Google and its effect on
Usenet. However much I may agree with your opinions on that topic, it is
in my opinion extremely rude to hijack threads for the purposes of being
bitchy.

Um, point taken. But my point is that's exactly what the repetitive
bitching, by the "regulars", which boils down to "Don't respond as if
you're responding from Google" (which, as they are, is obviously the
natural [and, dare I say, proper] thing for them to do), amounts to.

[Kenny McCormack]

In article <sl************ *********@FIAD0 6.norwich.edu>,
Neil Cerutti <le*******@emai l.com> wrote:

On 2005-10-27, Poldie <Po****@gmail.c om> wrote:

Provide context, there is no guarantee that everyone who
sees your post

etc etc

Yawn. Guess what - I don't care.

It's obviously your right to hold that attitude, but it is only
to your advantage if you prefer being ostracized.

Or admired by myself and others like me.

[Poldie]

> Googlers is a better pun.

Depends upon what you're punning - I was punning on Googlers, in which
case using the same word wouldn't really have had the same hilarious
comedic effect.

Actually, it's exactly the opposite. News servers throw away old
posts, google keeps them. If someone replys to a thread from last
week without context I haven't a clue what they're talking about
If they have my response then they'll almost certainly have the
original post, especially if - as in this case - the response is posted
soon after the original post.
If you want a conversation rather than a discussion there's always email

Maybe later.

[Default User]

Jordan Abel wrote:

On 2005-10-27, Flash Gordon <sp**@flash-gordon.me.uk> wrote:

Poldie wrote:

Isn't it
Isn't what? Provide context, there is no guarantee that everyone
who sees your post has seen the message you are responding to.

And that is why the References: header was invented.

Bull.
yes, it's irritating. so is reading people complaining about it.

The main way the new Google users (which are flooding usenet) are going
to find out how to behave properly is if people instruct them. You are
in the wrong here.
Brian
--
Please quote enough of the previous message for context. To do so from
Google, click "show options" and use the Reply shown in the expanded
header.

[Default User]

Poldie wrote:

Provide context, there is no guarantee that everyone who
sees your post

etc etc

Yawn. Guess what - I don't care.

*plonk*

Brian

[Default User]

Peter Davies wrote:

Please continue whinging here. It will help me and others who are
interested in the original thread to differentiate between usefulness
and fluff.

*plonk*

Brian

[Kenny McCormack]

In article <3s************ @individual.net >,
Default User <de***********@ yahoo.com> wrote:
....

The main way the new Google users (which are flooding usenet) are going
to find out how to behave properly is if people instruct them. You are
in the wrong here.

Agreed, in principle.

But, with Google as with all things Microsoft, in a very short while, it's
just not going to matter.

[Martin Ambuhl]

Poldie wrote:

Provide context, there is no guarantee that everyone who
sees your post

etc etc

Yawn. Guess what - I don't care.

Guess what - you have just shown your disdain for the other readers of
this newsgroup. Good luck with any questions you might have in the
future. The people who know the answers but whom you have told to fuck
off will not be reading your posts.

*PLONK*

[Keith Thompson]

"Poldie" <Po****@gmail.c om> writes:

Provide context, there is no guarantee that everyone who
sees your post

etc etc

Yawn. Guess what - I don't care.

You probably think you don't need to care because you read this
newsgroup through Google. Google provides a badly flawed interface,
but one of its virtues is that it makes it easy to see previous
articles. The majority of us, including most of the regulars, *don't*
use Google, so we can't see older articles as easily as you can.

Those who don't take the time to show some consideration for the rest
of us are far less likely to be able to participate in any meaningful
way.

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keit h) ks***@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
San Diego Supercomputer Center <*> <http://users.sdsc.edu/~kst>
We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this.