Jiri Kosina <[email protected]> wrote: > gcc-5 became somehow very picky about '!!' usages. I recall quite some > internal discussions with our gcc guys, which resulted in upstream gcc > bugzillas being filled about gcc warning in completely legitimate cases.
I suspect it's more that it's picky about '!' usages - which covers '!!'. I'm guessing they're trying to pick up people doing if(!x==y) when they mean if(!(x==y)) or somesuch. Jiri Kosina <[email protected]> wrote: > This is because we want to handle autorepeat (i.e. value 2) correctly. Now > that you ask, it seems to me that we actually should be doing > > !!test_bit(usage->code, input->key) != !!value I wonder if you could cast to bool instead? test_bit() possibly *should* return a bool these days, thus rendering the '!!' unnecessary. > to be really exact (i.e. so that we really can't have oscilating state). > > I'll think about it a little bit more, and eventually probably fix it this > way with your Reported-by: if you are OK with that. Yep. David -- 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/
