Re: Minor - patch 1.6.x - Fix some warnings in Connection.c

[Jonathan Fisher]

Omg haha I'm an oaf. Thanks! I'm surprised that also didn't cause another
warning.
On May 26, 2016 12:19 AM, "Willy Tarreau"  wrote:

> Hi Jonathan,
>
> On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 05:04:16AM -0500, Jonathan Fisher wrote:
> > What's the style you prefer?
>
> This one without the double negation :-)
>
> -   if (!memcmp(line, "TCP4 ", 5) != 0) {
> +   if (memcmp(line, "TCP4 ", 5) == 0) {
>
> I've just backported it now.
>
> Cheers,
> Willy
>
>

Re: Minor - patch 1.6.x - Fix some warnings in Connection.c

[Willy Tarreau]

Hi Jonathan,

On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 05:04:16AM -0500, Jonathan Fisher wrote:
> What's the style you prefer?

This one without the double negation :-)

-   if (!memcmp(line, "TCP4 ", 5) != 0) {
+   if (memcmp(line, "TCP4 ", 5) == 0) {

I've just backported it now.

Cheers,
Willy

Re: Minor - patch 1.6.x - Fix some warnings in Connection.c

[Jonathan Fisher]

What's the style you prefer?
On May 24, 2016 1:10 AM, "Willy Tarreau"  wrote:

> Hi Jonathan,
>
> On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 01:14:31PM -0400, Jonathan Fisher wrote:
> > These warnings bother me.
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > *Jonathan S. Fisher*
> > Senior Software Engineer
> > https://twitter.com/exabrial
> > http://www.tomitribe.com
> > https://www.tomitribe.io
>
> > diff --git a/src/connection.c b/src/connection.c
> > index 991cae3..12cdef0 100644
> > --- a/src/connection.c
> > +++ b/src/connection.c
> > @@ -385,7 +385,7 @@ int conn_recv_proxy(struct connection *conn, int
> flag)
> >   if (trash.len < 9) /* shortest possible line */
> >   goto missing;
> >
> > - if (!memcmp(line, "TCP4 ", 5) != 0) {
> > + if ((!memcmp(line, "TCP4 ", 5)) != 0) {
> >   u32 src3, dst3, sport, dport;
> >
> >   line += 5;
> > @@ -426,7 +426,7 @@ int conn_recv_proxy(struct connection *conn, int
> flag)
> >   ((struct sockaddr_in *)&conn->addr.to)->sin_port
> = htons(dport);
> >   conn->flags |= CO_FL_ADDR_FROM_SET | CO_FL_ADDR_TO_SET;
> >   }
> > - else if (!memcmp(line, "TCP6 ", 5) != 0) {
> > + else if ((!memcmp(line, "TCP6 ", 5)) != 0) {
> >   u32 sport, dport;
> >   char *src_s;
> >   char *dst_s, *sport_s, *dport_s;
>
> Well, these fixes make the code even uglier than what it was. Please note
> that these ones were already fixed some time ago by this patch
>
>   commit 42ff05e2d3d10e8a1e070e66e8883c5eabe196d7
>   Author: David CARLIER 
>   Date:   Thu Mar 24 09:22:36 2016 +
>
> CLEANUP: connection: fix double negation on memcmp()
>
> Nothing harmful in here, just clarify that it applies to the whole
> expression.
>
> I'm noticing that I didn't backport this patch, I should pick it.
>
> Thanks,
> Willy
>

Re: Minor - patch 1.6.x - Fix some warnings in Connection.c

[Willy Tarreau]

Hi Jonathan,

On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 01:14:31PM -0400, Jonathan Fisher wrote:
> These warnings bother me.
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> *Jonathan S. Fisher*
> Senior Software Engineer
> https://twitter.com/exabrial
> http://www.tomitribe.com
> https://www.tomitribe.io

> diff --git a/src/connection.c b/src/connection.c
> index 991cae3..12cdef0 100644
> --- a/src/connection.c
> +++ b/src/connection.c
> @@ -385,7 +385,7 @@ int conn_recv_proxy(struct connection *conn, int flag)
>   if (trash.len < 9) /* shortest possible line */
>   goto missing;
>  
> - if (!memcmp(line, "TCP4 ", 5) != 0) {
> + if ((!memcmp(line, "TCP4 ", 5)) != 0) {
>   u32 src3, dst3, sport, dport;
>  
>   line += 5;
> @@ -426,7 +426,7 @@ int conn_recv_proxy(struct connection *conn, int flag)
>   ((struct sockaddr_in *)&conn->addr.to)->sin_port  = 
> htons(dport);
>   conn->flags |= CO_FL_ADDR_FROM_SET | CO_FL_ADDR_TO_SET;
>   }
> - else if (!memcmp(line, "TCP6 ", 5) != 0) {
> + else if ((!memcmp(line, "TCP6 ", 5)) != 0) {
>   u32 sport, dport;
>   char *src_s;
>   char *dst_s, *sport_s, *dport_s;

Well, these fixes make the code even uglier than what it was. Please note
that these ones were already fixed some time ago by this patch 

  commit 42ff05e2d3d10e8a1e070e66e8883c5eabe196d7
  Author: David CARLIER 
  Date:   Thu Mar 24 09:22:36 2016 +

CLEANUP: connection: fix double negation on memcmp()

Nothing harmful in here, just clarify that it applies to the whole
expression.

I'm noticing that I didn't backport this patch, I should pick it.

Thanks,
Willy