This is the mail archive of the gdb-patches@sourceware.org mailing list for the GDB project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: [patch] Fix regression on prelinked executables

From: Joel Brobecker <brobecker at adacore dot com>
To: Jan Kratochvil <jan dot kratochvil at redhat dot com>
Cc: gdb-patches at sourceware dot org
Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2010 08:54:56 -0700
Subject: Re: [patch] Fix regression on prelinked executables
References: <20100715095457.GA22922@host0.dyn.jankratochvil.net> <20100729163648.GA13267@adacore.com> <20100730154442.GA25162@host1.dyn.jankratochvil.net>

> The meaning is reversed.  It is !(a || b || c).  Which I find more readable
> than (!a && !b && !c).  But I will have to change my mind as it seems to not
> everyone may consider my chosen format as more readable.

I just decided to read the condition as "suppress the warning if (a || b)".
That helped mentally absorb it.  But I think that's a detail.

> That is the change above reducing the enumerated list in fact
> increases the probability we give a warning.

OK - just wanted to make sure that this was the intent.

> OK to check-in?

Sure.

-- 
Joel

Follow-Ups:
- Re: [patch] Fix regression on prelinked executables
  - From: Jan Kratochvil

References:
- [patch] Fix regression on prelinked executables
  - From: Jan Kratochvil
- Re: [patch] Fix regression on prelinked executables
  - From: Joel Brobecker
- Re: [patch] Fix regression on prelinked executables
  - From: Jan Kratochvil

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]