2014/1/1 Peter Maydell <peter.mayd...@linaro.org> > On 31 December 2013 13:29, Kewei Yu <kewe...@gmail.com> wrote: > > 2013/12/31 Peter Crosthwaite <peter.crosthwa...@xilinx.com> > >> > >> On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 2:42 PM, Kewei Yu <kewe...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > "%s", qemu_binary, s->socket_path, > >> > s->qmp_socket_path, pid_file, > >> > + qtest_vnc_param ?: "", > >> > >> I do vaguely remember someone going to efforts to remove uses of "? : > >> foo" (with the blank true value). > > > > I'm not clear the sentence's meaning. > > Using the ternary operator "X ? Y : Z" with an empty 2nd operand > "X ?: Y" is not standard C. It's a GCC extension. There was a > suggestion a year or so back that we should remove the uses of > it, but the consensus was that this was unnecessary, since in > practice we rely on other GCC extensions. Clang also supports > this syntax, and it's the only other compiler we care about. > > Oh! Thank you, I got it.
In this case it seems reasonable, especially since the line > immediately below this addition is using it too. > But,do I need to fix them to be "X ? Y : Z" and keep them consistent? Faithfully yours Kewei Yu thanks > -- PMM >
