On Tue, Jul 03, 2007 at 01:22:47AM -0400, Len Brown wrote:
> whelp, it seems that the reason for this patch is this:
>
> #define DBG()
>
> if(...)
> DBG();
> next_c_statement
>
> which turns into
> if(...) ;
> next_c_statement
>
> But since there is an intervening ';', this code is still functionally correct
> and a decent compiler will delete the test altogether, yes?
Right, gcc does generate the correct code.
> So is there some real problem here that I missed,
> or is this to make some code-checking tool that I don't have happy?
Out of curiousity, I thought I'd see what was lurking in a -Wextra
build a while back. It's 99.9% noise, but a lot of it is trivial stuff
like this.
Dave
--
http://www.codemonkey.org.uk
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
