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