From: ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman)
To: Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@linux01.gwdg.de>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] proc: Make the generation of the self symlink table driven.
Date: Fri, 08 Sep 2006 20:34:31 -0600 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <m1d5a5kbt4.fsf@ebiederm.dsl.xmission.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.61.0609081851260.19699@yvahk01.tjqt.qr> (Jan Engelhardt's message of "Fri, 8 Sep 2006 18:55:10 +0200 (MEST)")
Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@linux01.gwdg.de> writes:
>>Regardless this isn't a case where the C precedence is wrong.
>>"a < b | 1" is an example of C getting the precedence wrong.
>
> Blame the creator of C.
> But maybe this was intended, since | is a logical operation, as is <,
> while + is an arithmetic one. Programmatically probably not making much
> sense, bitfield |= a < b is one use case.
I do. As I recall the history | and & predate the introduction
of || and && and originally served both functions, so the got
the lower precedence.
>>Having to remember where C is wrong and in what circumstances is
>>harder than just putting in parenthesis.
>
> The GNU C compiler will warn you where such may happen, but
> currently does so - too bad - only with && and ||.
> c.c:2: warning: suggest parentheses around && within ||
You see my point :) I have better things to worry about
when writing and reviewing code than remember what the
precedence rules are.
Anyway I have figured out how to remove the need for the - 1,
and the trailing empty entries in proc, patch to follow shortly.
Eric
prev parent reply other threads:[~2006-09-09 2:35 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2006-09-06 16:23 Eric W. Biederman
2006-09-06 16:24 ` [PATCH 2/5] proc: Factor out an instantiate method from every lookup method Eric W. Biederman
2006-09-06 16:27 ` [PATCH 3/5] proc: Remove the hard coded inode numbers Eric W. Biederman
2006-09-06 16:28 ` [PATCH 4/5] proc: Merge proc_tid_attr and proc_tgid_attr Eric W. Biederman
2006-09-06 16:31 ` [PATCH 5/5] proc: Use pid_task instead of open coding it Eric W. Biederman
2006-09-07 17:22 ` [PATCH 3/5] proc: Remove the hard coded inode numbers Andrew Morton
2006-09-07 17:55 ` Eric W. Biederman
2006-09-07 18:06 ` Andrew Morton
2006-09-07 18:37 ` Eric W. Biederman
2006-09-07 17:18 ` [PATCH 2/5] proc: Factor out an instantiate method from every lookup method Andrew Morton
2006-09-07 18:08 ` Eric W. Biederman
2006-09-07 17:15 ` [PATCH 1/5] proc: Make the generation of the self symlink table driven Andrew Morton
2006-09-07 18:04 ` Eric W. Biederman
2006-09-08 7:07 ` Jan Engelhardt
2006-09-08 11:04 ` Eric W. Biederman
2006-09-08 13:08 ` Jan Engelhardt
2006-09-08 13:27 ` Eric W. Biederman
2006-09-08 16:55 ` Jan Engelhardt
2006-09-09 2:34 ` Eric W. Biederman [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=m1d5a5kbt4.fsf@ebiederm.dsl.xmission.com \
--to=ebiederm@xmission.com \
--cc=akpm@osdl.org \
--cc=jengelh@linux01.gwdg.de \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
Powered by JetHome