phil@sequent.UUCP (Phil Hochstetler) (06/06/89)
I noticed a typo in top 2.5 in the file "display.c".
The following code has an extra ";" at line 117.
117 if (mpid != lmpid);
118 {
119 Move_to(x_lastpid, y_lastpid);
120 printf("%5d", mpid);
121 lmpid = mpid;
122 }
This bug is somewhat harmless but does increase the cpu time consumed.
--
Phil Hochstetler UUCP: uunet!sequent!phil
Sequent Computer Systems
Beaverton, Oregonr4@cbnews.ATT.COM (richard.r.grady..jr) (06/07/89)
In article <16964@sequent.UUCP> phil@sequent.UUCP (Phil Hochstetler) writes:
- I noticed a typo in top 2.5 in the file "display.c".
- The following code has an extra ";" at line 117.
-
- 117 if (mpid != lmpid);
- 118 {
- 119 Move_to(x_lastpid, y_lastpid);
- 120 printf("%5d", mpid);
- 121 lmpid = mpid;
- 122 }
-
- This bug is somewhat harmless but does increase the cpu time consumed.
The ";" at the end of line 117 terminates the "if" statement.
Thus lines 119-121 are ALWAYS executed,
probably not what the programmer of top 2.5 intended.
This doesn't seem to me to be a harmless bug!
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Dick Grady r4@mvuxd.att.com ...!att!mvuxd!r4 rick@uunet.UU.NET (Rick Adams) (06/07/89)
If you actually look at the code you will see that on most real systems it makes absolutely no difference! The test is to see if the maximum pid hsa increased since the last window update. Given that the window updates are on the over of several seconds, if your system hasn't created a new process in that time period, then its idle anyway, so who cares? yes, its clearly a bug, but its not a big deal.
tony@gvgpvd.GVG.TEK.COM (Tony Ivanov) (06/07/89)
In article <7189@cbnews.ATT.COM> r4@cbnews.ATT.COM (richard.r.grady..jr) writes: ^In article <16964@sequent.UUCP> phil@sequent.UUCP (Phil Hochstetler) writes: ^- I noticed a typo in top 2.5 in the file "display.c". ^- The following code has an extra ";" at line 117. ^- ^- 117 if (mpid != lmpid); ^- 118 { ^- 119 Move_to(x_lastpid, y_lastpid); ^- 120 printf("%5d", mpid); ^- 121 lmpid = mpid; ^- 122 } ^- ^- This bug is somewhat harmless but does increase the cpu time consumed. ^ ^The ";" at the end of line 117 terminates the "if" statement. ^Thus lines 119-121 are ALWAYS executed, ^probably not what the programmer of top 2.5 intended. ^This doesn't seem to me to be a harmless bug! Look at what the code does: moves to the correct location on the screen, then prints out the "mpid" variable, then sets lmpid to mpid. Even if mpid is the same as lmpid, the output result is the same. Seems pretty harmless to me! --Tony -- /* My opinions... * Tony Ivanov MS-4B * ...ucbvax! */ /* shared by my company?!... * Grass Valley Group, Inc. * tektronix! */ /* you've got to be kidding! * P.O. Box 1114 * gvgpsa! */ /* "tony@gvgpvd.GVG.TEK.COM" * Grass Valley, CA 95945 * gvgpvd!tony */