From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1L39ZS-0004jP-RK
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 20 Nov 2008 08:27:46 -0500
Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1L39ZR-0004im-BJ
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 20 Nov 2008 08:27:46 -0500
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=39813 helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1L39ZQ-0004id-Vt
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 20 Nov 2008 08:27:45 -0500
Received: from mail2.shareable.org ([80.68.89.115]:38515)
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32)
	(Exim 4.60) (envelope-from <jamie@shareable.org>) id 1L39ZQ-00011y-GB
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 20 Nov 2008 08:27:44 -0500
Received: from jamie by mail2.shareable.org with local (Exim 4.63)
	(envelope-from <jamie@shareable.org>) id 1L39ZN-00039B-94
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 20 Nov 2008 13:27:41 +0000
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2008 13:27:41 +0000
From: Jamie Lokier <jamie@shareable.org>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] Re: [PATCH 1/2] Add TAILQ_FOREACH_SAFE
Message-ID: <20081120132741.GB11616@shareable.org>
References: <20081119134857.26075.2417.stgit@mchn012c.ww002.siemens.net>
	<20081119134857.26075.9428.stgit@mchn012c.ww002.siemens.net>
	<492429F3.3010202@codemonkey.ws> <492435B9.3010106@siemens.com>
	<49244376.7020009@codemonkey.ws>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <49244376.7020009@codemonkey.ws>
Reply-To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org
List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/pipermail/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org

Anthony Liguori wrote:
> Wouldn't:
> 
> (var) ? ({ (next_var) = ((var)->field.tqe_next); 1;}) :0;
> 
> Be equivalent to:
> 
> (var) ? ((next_var = ((var)->field.tqe_next), var) : var

Simpler:

(var) && ((next_var) = (var)->field.tqe_next, 1)

+ don't forget parens around macro arguments

-- Jamie