-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 03/27/2015 03:17, Michael Thayer wrote:
> On 26.03.2015 20:48, Jung-uk Kim wrote:
>> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256
>>
>> On 03/26/2015 15:25, Michal Necasek wrote:
>>> Sorry, I wasn't clear. By "what is the semantic difference"
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 03/27/2015 05:54, Michal Necasek wrote:
> After a bit of internal discussion, we suspect that the flagged
> instance does not in fact involve a pointer.
>
> Could you please run the module through a preprocessor in your
> compilation environmen
;> - Original Message - From: j...@freebsd.org To:
>> michal.neca...@oracle.com, vbox-dev@virtualbox.org Sent: Thursday,
>> March 26, 2015 7:59:29 PM GMT +01:00 Amsterdam / Berlin / Bern /
>> Rome / Stockholm / Vienna Subject: Re: [vbox-dev] [PATCH 2/8] Fix
>> an i
rogrammers can have a hard time reading compilers'
>> minds, too.
>
> Last time I checked compilers lacked mind. ;-)
>
> Jung-uk Kim
>
>> - Original Message - From: j...@freebsd.org To:
>> michal.neca...@oracle.com, vbox-dev@virtualbox.org Sent: Thursda
On 26.03.2015 20:48, Jung-uk Kim wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA256
>
> On 03/26/2015 15:25, Michal Necasek wrote:
>> Sorry, I wasn't clear. By "what is the semantic difference" I meant
>> "under what circumstances will the conditional behave differently".
>> There must be s
s lacked mind. ;-)
Jung-uk Kim
> - Original Message - From: j...@freebsd.org To:
> michal.neca...@oracle.com, vbox-dev@virtualbox.org Sent: Thursday,
> March 26, 2015 7:59:29 PM GMT +01:00 Amsterdam / Berlin / Bern /
> Rome / Stockholm / Vienna Subject: Re: [vbox-dev] [PATCH
rd time reading compilers' minds, too.
- Original Message -
From: j...@freebsd.org
To: michal.neca...@oracle.com, vbox-dev@virtualbox.org
Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2015 7:59:29 PM GMT +01:00 Amsterdam / Berlin / Bern
/ Rome / Stockholm / Vienna
Subject: Re: [vbox-dev] [PATCH 2/8] Fix an im
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 03/26/2015 14:03, Michal Necasek wrote:
>
> The question isn't whether a compiler can warn. The question is,
> why should it?
Although this specific code has absolutely no problem, compilers are
not smart enough to read authors' mind yet. ;-)
>
8 PM GMT +01:00 Amsterdam / Berlin / Bern
/ Rome / Stockholm / Vienna
Subject: Re: [vbox-dev] [PATCH 2/8] Fix an implicit conversion from pointer to
bool
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 03/26/2015 04:51, Frank Mehnert wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Friday 13 March 2015 16:56:56
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 03/26/2015 04:51, Frank Mehnert wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Friday 13 March 2015 16:56:56 Jung-uk Kim wrote:
>> This fix an implicit conversion from pointer to bool.
>
> why is this patch necessary? An expression like
>
> if (pointer) { }
>
> is compl
Hi,
On Friday 13 March 2015 16:56:56 Jung-uk Kim wrote:
> This fix an implicit conversion from pointer to bool.
why is this patch necessary? An expression like
if (pointer)
{
}
is completely valid and no compiler should warn about it. It tests if
the pointer has a value different from NUL
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
This fix an implicit conversion from pointer to bool.
Jung-uk Kim
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v2
iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJVA08YAAoJEHyflib82/FGVQwIAJbs+3+UO1hq1jwfPupI/w1Q
KS21i1Lj9OsvmY3pQLfaTAIJfPX7aLyghhMri+zhti9L4E7Mh+Eedwdil5/HLLPT
1XF8
12 matches
Mail list logo
