Re: [PATCH] Add checks for new and tmp directories to mx_is_maildir()

On Thu, Feb 05, 2026 at 02:57:47AM +0100, Gero Treuner wrote:
>Out of curiosity I rewrote it to iterate over the three subdirectory
>names and compared the difference in size of the binaries. In this
>case it apparently is dominated by (debug) symbols and not hitting a
>threshold for reduced size of a fully stripped binary on my system.
>
>So having done this anyway, I propose an optimization utilizing the
>uniform length of the names. (Further compacting the code saves more
>space but degrades readability of the logic.)

Thanks Gero!  I certainly agree it's more optimized. :D

However, I personally argue for code clarity except when optimization is 
called for.  In this case, I don't think it's worth the trade off.  See 
just below the function in mh.c, mx_is_mh(), for similar code, also 
called by mx_get_magic().

As always, if others disagree please just say so.

-- 
Kevin J. McCarthy
GPG Fingerprint: 8975 A9B3 3AA3 7910 385C  5308 ADEF 7684 8031 6BDA

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
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=tslE
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----