Re: add non-option reordering to in-tree getopt_long

From: Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz, noah(at)leadboat(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: add non-option reordering to in-tree getopt_long
Date: 2023-06-21 17:56:24
Message-ID: 20230621175624.GA882103@nathanxps13
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, Jun 20, 2023 at 02:12:44PM +0900, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote:
> The argv elements get shuffled around many times with the
> patch. However, I couldn't find a way to decrease the count without
> resorting to a forward scan. So I've concluded the current approach
> is them most effeicient, considering the complexity.

Yeah, I'm not sure it's worth doing anything more sophisticated.

> I tried some patterns with the patch and it generates the same results
> with the glibc version.
>
> The TAP test looks fine and it catches the change.
>
> Everything looks fine to me.

Thanks for reviewing.

--
Nathan Bossart
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2023-06-21 18:07:34 Re: Support TZ format code in to_timestamp()
Previous Message Jonathan S. Katz 2023-06-21 17:17:33 Re: collation-related loose ends before beta2