On 02/09/2012 06:43 PM, walter harms wrote: > > > Am 09.02.2012 18:22, schrieb Chase Douglas: >> On 02/09/2012 03:27 PM, Peter Hutterer wrote: >>> On Wed, Feb 08, 2012 at 06:35:16PM -0800, Chase Douglas wrote: >>>> Signed-off-by: Chase Douglas <chase.doug...@canonical.com> >>>> --- >>>> src/synaptics.c | 78 >>>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++- >>>> src/synapticsstr.h | 1 + >>>> src/synproto.h | 5 +++ >>>> 3 files changed, 82 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) >>>> >>>> diff --git a/src/synaptics.c b/src/synaptics.c >>>> index c0398fb..b01be59 100644 >>>> --- a/src/synaptics.c >>>> +++ b/src/synaptics.c >>>> @@ -1151,6 +1151,8 @@ DeviceInit(DeviceIntPtr dev) >>>> #ifdef HAVE_MULTITOUCH >>>> if (priv->has_touch) >>>> { >>>> + priv->num_slots = priv->max_touches ? : 10; >>> >>> whoah, didn't know that was legal. is this gcc or std C? >>> either way, I'd rather not do that because of this behaviour: >>> >>> int a = 12; >>> a = (a > 10) ? : 10; >>> → a is now 1 >>> >>> Not quite what one would expect. >> >> I think it is standard C. It's not seen too often because many times >> you're checking a value against something non-zero. A better example of >> how not to do it is: >> >> a = (b > 0) ? : 10; >> >> I don't see any reason why what I have is bad, but I'll change it if it >> makes you cringe. People writing C need to know what they are doing, and >> this isn't one of those areas where what really happens is different >> than what one might think. >> > > > IMHO this is a gcc extension. (Conditionals with omitted Operands)
Well, it's not really an opinion, it either is or it isn't :). Do you know where to look to be sure? I would be interested in knowing. -- Chase _______________________________________________ xorg-devel@lists.x.org: X.Org development Archives: http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel Info: http://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-devel