On 11/26/12, Sam Bobroff sbobr...@shoretel.com wrote:
Your suggestion of changing the comma operator to seems like a good
solution to me too but personally, as I sort of explained before, I
would use a more direct approach: assert() takes one argument and I want
it to take two, so I'd write
On Sat, Nov 24, 2012 at 06:50:53PM -0800, Colin McCabe wrote:
I do think it would make sense to replace that:
assert(foo was 0, foo) ;
assert((foo was 0, foo)); /* mind the parentheses */
with:
assert(foo was 0 foo);
The latter doesn't produce any gcc warnings for me, whereas the former
On 25/11/12 13:50, Colin McCabe wrote:
On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 2:17 PM, Sam Bobroff sbobr...@shoretel.com wrote:
On 20/11/12 21:34, Marc Lehmann wrote:
On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 02:54:50AM +, Sam Bobroff
sbobr...@shoretel.com wrote:
Sorry if you felt that I'd disrespected your code, that
On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 2:17 PM, Sam Bobroff sbobr...@shoretel.com wrote:
On 20/11/12 21:34, Marc Lehmann wrote:
On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 02:54:50AM +, Sam Bobroff
sbobr...@shoretel.com wrote:
Sorry if you felt that I'd disrespected your code, that wasn't my
A hack is something that
On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 02:54:50AM +, Sam Bobroff sbobr...@shoretel.com
wrote:
Sorry if you felt that I'd disrespected your code, that wasn't my
A hack is something that happens to work, but is not well done.
This use of assert is part of the C language that is well supported and in
I tend to use with the string literal:
assert (libev: watcher has invalid priority ABSPRI (w) = 0 ABSPRI
(w) NUMPRI);
On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 2:34 AM, Marc Lehmann schm...@schmorp.de wrote:
On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 02:54:50AM +, Sam Bobroff
sbobr...@shoretel.com wrote:
Sorry if you
On 20/11/12 21:34, Marc Lehmann wrote:
On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 02:54:50AM +, Sam Bobroff sbobr...@shoretel.com
wrote:
Sorry if you felt that I'd disrespected your code, that wasn't my
A hack is something that happens to work, but is not well done.
This use of assert is part of the C
You might be able to silence this with __attribute__((unused)), at
least for GCC and llvm. Or possibly by making assert a multi-argument
macro...
Colin
On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 4:09 AM, Yoran Heling i...@yorhel.nl wrote:
On 2012-11-16, SmallAnt wrote:
i embed libev in my program,when
On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 10:20:44AM -0800, Colin McCabe cmcc...@alumni.cmu.edu
wrote:
You might be able to silence this with __attribute__((unused)), at
is only defined for variables and functions.
least for GCC and llvm. Or possibly by making assert a multi-argument
macro...
macros can't
On 16/11/12 23:09, Yoran Heling wrote:
[snip]
Just look at the source:
assert ((libev: watcher has invalid priority, ABSPRI (w) = 0 ABSPRI
(w) NUMPRI));
The string has absolutely no effect to the behaviour of the code, so the
warning makes sense. However, that string *is* quite useful
On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 01:16:04AM +, Sam Bobroff sbobr...@shoretel.com
wrote:
Maybe those hack strings should removed from the assert calls and be
moved into comments in the code?
Calling this a hack just shows your immaturity in the C language - not
everything that is new to you is badly
On 20/11/12 12:32, Marc Lehmann wrote:
On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 01:16:04AM +, Sam Bobroff sbobr...@shoretel.com
wrote:
Maybe those hack strings should removed from the assert calls and be
moved into comments in the code?
Calling this a hack just shows your immaturity in the C language -
i embed libev in my program,when compile,there are warnings:
///
./libev/ev_poll.c: In function `poll_poll':
./libev/ev_poll.c:110: warning: left-hand operand of comma expression
has no effect
In file included from ohc_ev.c:7:
./libev/ev.c: In function `verify_watcher':
./libev/ev.c:2504: warning:
13 matches
Mail list logo
