On Wed, Apr 17, 2002 at 01:53:55PM -0700, Martin J. Bligh wrote:
> > of C and the "&&" operator say that "if the first is false, the
> > second needn't even be evaluated".
>
> That's what I would have thought.
> But I don't think it's the second part that causes the warning,
> it's the thing *inside* the if clause.
Exactly.
> > Could that be what's causing the warning?
>
> To my mind, that's why we should *not* be getting a warning ?
Indeed. The optimization step that (presumably) removes the body
of the if() must happen after the body has been fully evaluated.
Makes sense, I guess, now that I think about it...
--Adam
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Apr 23 2002 - 22:00:19 EST