Cliff Woolley wrote:
>
> On 19 May 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > --- apr_sms.c 2001/05/19 13:53:06 1.3
> > +++ apr_sms.c 2001/05/19 15:35:45 1.4
> > @@ -193,7 +193,7 @@
> > mem_sys->accounting_mem_sys = mem_sys;
> >
> > if (parent_mem_sys != NULL){
> > - if (mem_sys->sibling_mem_sys = parent_mem_sys->child_mem_sys){
> > + if ((mem_sys->sibling_mem_sys = parent_mem_sys->child_mem_sys)){
> > mem_sys->sibling_mem_sys->ref_mem_sys =
> > &mem_sys->sibling_mem_sys;
> > }
> > mem_sys->ref_mem_sys = &parent_mem_sys->child_mem_sys;
>
> Just to verify (haven't looked at this section of the code itself yet),
> assignment IS what's intended here, right? If so, a ((foo = bar) != NULL)
> might make that more clear.
Good point. I foolishly assumed the assignment was intentional - it
still looks like it is, but confirmation from someone who knows would be
good. I agree with != NULL if it is so.
Cheers,
Ben.
--
http://www.apache-ssl.org/ben.html
"There is no limit to what a man can do or how far he can go if he
doesn't mind who gets the credit." - Robert Woodruff
