Dear Robin,
in message 3FFA355E.4090306@tait.co.nz you wrote:
Introduce a new command to be used in conditional expressions (such as hush 'if') to test the value of a memory location. Supports -eq, -ne, -gt, -lt, -ge, -le Allows scalars or memory contents (value prefixed by '*') Makes use of command data width expression of .l, .wm .b for 4, 2 or 1 byte wide comparisons e.g. if itest.l *40000 -eq 12345678; then bootm 41000; else bootm 80000; fi
Sorry, but I don;t want to add the code as is.
May I suggest you rewrite it a bit?
- switch (op) {
- case EQ:
return (l == r);- case NE:
return (l != r);- case LT:
return (l < r);- case GT:
return (l > r);- case LE:
return (l <= r);- case GE:
return (l >= r);- }
- return (FALSE);
+}
+int binary_test(char *op, char *arg1, char *arg2, int w) +{
- if (op[2] == 't') {
switch (op[1]) {case 'l':return (arithcomp(arg1, arg2, LT, w)); /* -lt */case 'g':return (arithcomp(arg1, arg2, GT, w)); /* -gt */}- } else if (op[1] == 'e') {
switch (op[2]) {case 'q':return (arithcomp(arg1, arg2, EQ, w)); /* -eq */}- } else if (op[2] == 'e') {
switch (op[1]) {case 'n':return (arithcomp(arg1, arg2, NE, w)); /* -ne */case 'g':return (arithcomp(arg1, arg2, GE, w)); /* -ge */case 'l':return (arithcomp(arg1, arg2, LE, w)); /* -le */}- }
Instead of all the nested tests we could use an array with command names and table lookup - which would also allow to use operators like '<' or ">=", and I also expect the total memory footprint to be even smaller.
Also, instead of just returning FALSE we should at least print an error message for invalid input / operators.
Finally, maybe you even want to add string compare :-)
Best regards,
Wolfgang Denk