From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1Lx4sT-00035V-QQ
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 23 Apr 2009 15:46:33 -0400
Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1Lx4sO-00034C-AJ
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 23 Apr 2009 15:46:32 -0400
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=50282 helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Lx4sN-000344-Ui
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 23 Apr 2009 15:46:28 -0400
Received: from caffeine.csclub.uwaterloo.ca ([129.97.134.17]:49474)
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60)
	(envelope-from <lsorense@csclub.uwaterloo.ca>) id 1Lx4sN-0002tl-In
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 23 Apr 2009 15:46:27 -0400
Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2009 15:46:27 -0400
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] Re: [7234] Use a more natural order
Message-ID: <20090423194626.GL3795@csclub.uwaterloo.ca>
References: <E1Lx3gB-0002ko-Iq@cvs.savannah.gnu.org>
	<20090423185308.GH3795@csclub.uwaterloo.ca>
	<49F0C361.5030402@web.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <49F0C361.5030402@web.de>
From: lsorense@csclub.uwaterloo.ca (Lennart Sorensen)
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: Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@web.de>
Cc: Blue Swirl <blauwirbel@gmail.com>, qemu-devel@nongnu.org

On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 09:37:05PM +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> Lennart Sorensen wrote:
> > It may be more natural, but it is also less safe.
> > 
> > After all
> > 
> > if (0 = x) {
> > 
> > fails compile, while
> > 
> > if (x = 0) {
> > 
> > compiles silently even when you didn't mean that.
> 
> Today gcc will warn you as well. Of course this means you have to look
> at warnings.

True.  You can tell it off by doing if ((x = 0)) it seems.

Always safer to treat warnings as errors it seems.

-- 
Len Sorensen