diff for duplicates of <4B7EC93A.5010304@ladisch.de> diff --git a/a/1.txt b/N1/1.txt index a847c5e..ec549ce 100644 --- a/a/1.txt +++ b/N1/1.txt @@ -2,10 +2,10 @@ Bernd Petrovitsch wrote: > On Fre, 2010-02-19 at 14:29 +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote: > > On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 11:33:30AM +0100, Bernd Petrovitsch wrote: > > Basically often when people write: -> > if (!foo == bar) { ... +> > if (!foo = bar) { ... > > > > What they mean is: -> > if (!(foo == bar)) { ... +> > if (!(foo = bar)) { ... But there are also cases where they mean what they've written. @@ -18,13 +18,13 @@ logic. > > But if they really do mean the original code they could just write > > this so it's clear to everyone: -> > if ((!foo) == bar) { ... +> > if ((!foo) = bar) { ... This is unnatural (especially in a simple example like this) because the parens haven't been needed at all before smatch. -!foo==bar is always identical to !(foo==bar) for boolean values; to +!foo=bar is always identical to !(foo=bar) for boolean values; to avoid false positives, you could output the warning only when the code is trying to manipulate non-boolean values. IMO the message would be justified if it said "using suspicious boolean operations on non-boolean diff --git a/a/content_digest b/N1/content_digest index 780a99b..1316094 100644 --- a/a/content_digest +++ b/N1/content_digest @@ -5,7 +5,7 @@ "ref\01266584951.31443.15.camel@thorin\0" "From\0Clemens Ladisch <clemens@ladisch.de>\0" "Subject\0Re: [patch] oxygen: clean up. make precedence explicit\0" - "Date\0Fri, 19 Feb 2010 18:24:10 +0100\0" + "Date\0Fri, 19 Feb 2010 17:24:10 +0000\0" "To\0Bernd Petrovitsch <bernd@petrovitsch.priv.at>\0" "Cc\0alsa-devel@alsa-project.org" kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org @@ -16,10 +16,10 @@ "> On Fre, 2010-02-19 at 14:29 +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:\n" "> > On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 11:33:30AM +0100, Bernd Petrovitsch wrote:\n" "> > Basically often when people write:\n" - "> > \tif (!foo == bar) { ...\n" + "> > \tif (!foo = bar) { ...\n" "> > \n" "> > What they mean is:\n" - "> > \tif (!(foo == bar)) { ...\n" + "> > \tif (!(foo = bar)) { ...\n" "\n" "But there are also cases where they mean what they've written.\n" "\n" @@ -32,13 +32,13 @@ "\n" "> > But if they really do mean the original code they could just write \n" "> > this so it's clear to everyone: \n" - "> > \tif ((!foo) == bar) { ...\n" + "> > \tif ((!foo) = bar) { ...\n" "\n" "This is unnatural (especially in a simple example like this) because\n" "the parens haven't been needed at all before smatch.\n" "\n" "\n" - "!foo==bar is always identical to !(foo==bar) for boolean values; to\n" + "!foo=bar is always identical to !(foo=bar) for boolean values; to\n" "avoid false positives, you could output the warning only when the code\n" "is trying to manipulate non-boolean values. IMO the message would be\n" "justified if it said \"using suspicious boolean operations on non-boolean\n" @@ -49,4 +49,4 @@ "Regards,\n" Clemens -44d33c73f73f4e1253b93a6494658d32bc1a6e8dc2686a114ffba356d994735f +ed4f00cbf57d80d5b71ef34a6cc6f3b3bf14e9a481aed4d4ec9cc14d243fb489
This is an external index of several public inboxes, see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror all data and code used by this external index.