On Tuesday 03 July 2007 01:44, Dave Jones wrote:
> 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.
okay, i'll apply it to reduce the noise.
thanks,
-Len
-
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]
