On 18.12.2013 12:00:49, Richard Braun wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 11:40:09AM +0100, Marin Ramesa wrote:
> > On 18.12.2013 11:34:03, Richard Braun wrote:
> > > I don't get this warning, can you tell us how you configure GNU
> > > Mach ?
> >
> > --enable-kdb --prefix=
> >
> > But the warning
On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 11:40:09AM +0100, Marin Ramesa wrote:
> On 18.12.2013 11:34:03, Richard Braun wrote:
> > I don't get this warning, can you tell us how you configure GNU
> > Mach ?
>
> --enable-kdb --prefix=
>
> But the warning is turned off by:
>
> ipc_port_t notify_port = 0;
>
> in i
On 18.12.2013 11:34:03, Richard Braun wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 11:25:36AM +0100, Marin Ramesa wrote:
> > Yes, vou're right. I got confused. But then something else is
> > happening here. When I write the assertion this way:
> >
> > assert((entry == IE_NULL) || ((entry != IE_NULL) ? IE_BI
On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 11:25:36AM +0100, Marin Ramesa wrote:
> Yes, vou're right. I got confused. But then something else is happening
> here. When I write the assertion this way:
>
> assert((entry == IE_NULL) || ((entry != IE_NULL) ? IE_BITS_TYPE
> (entry->ie_bits) : TRUE));
>
> GCC stops co
> Marin Ramesa writes:
> On 18.12.2013 10:46:40, Richard Braun wrote:
[...]
>> No, that's wrong. The && and || operators are guaranteed to be
>> evaluated left-to-right, and yield if the first operand compares
>> equal to 0. And that's exactly why this check against NULL is done
>>
On 18.12.2013 11:11:10, Richard Braun wrote:
> The expression is ((a == NULL) || a->something), and I agree it is
> equivalent to !((a != NULL) && !a->something). And again, both the
> && and || operators are guaranteed to be evaluated left-to-right and
> *yield* without evaluating the second opera
On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 10:55:47AM +0100, Marin Ramesa wrote:
> On 18.12.2013 10:46:40, Richard Braun wrote:
> > No, that's wrong. The && and || operators are guaranteed to be
> > evaluated left-to-right, and yield if the first operand compares
> > equal to 0. And that's exactly why this check aga
On 18.12.2013 10:55:47, Marin Ramesa wrote:
> in order to return TRUE
Sorry, I meant to say in order to return FALSE.
On 18.12.2013 10:46:40, Richard Braun wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 10:37:03AM +0100, Marin Ramesa wrote:
> > Compiler needs to check both !a and !b. In order to evaluate !b it
> > must evaluate b. So when the code path is that when entry is a null
> > pointer, the evaluation of b results in a d
On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 10:46:40AM +0100, Richard Braun wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 10:37:03AM +0100, Marin Ramesa wrote:
> > Compiler needs to check both !a and !b. In order to evaluate !b it must
> > evaluate b. So when the code path is that when entry is a null pointer,
> > the evaluation
On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 10:37:03AM +0100, Marin Ramesa wrote:
> Compiler needs to check both !a and !b. In order to evaluate !b it must
> evaluate b. So when the code path is that when entry is a null pointer,
> the evaluation of b results in a dereference of a null pointer.
No, that's wrong. Th
On 18.12.2013 10:20:21, Anatoly A. Kazantsev wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Dec 2013 09:17:47 +0100
> Marin Ramesa wrote:
>
> > ...
> > Negation of an
> > OR expression is an AND expression.
> > ...
>
> Maybe I did't get you correctly, but isn't !(a || b) == !a && !b ?
Yes.
> And evaluation of the second
On Wed, 18 Dec 2013 09:17:47 +0100
Marin Ramesa wrote:
> ...
> Negation of an
> OR expression is an AND expression.
> ...
Maybe I did't get you correctly, but isn't !(a || b) == !a && !b ?
And evaluation of the second condition doesn't happen when entry = IE_NULL
--
Regards,
Anatoly
The problem is in this statement:
assert((entry == IE_NULL) || IE_BITS_TYPE(entry->ie_bits));
The macro assert() checks for a negation of this expression. Negation of an
OR expression is an AND expression. In order to evaluate an AND expression,
compiler needs to check both conditions. So it firs
14 matches
Mail list logo
