Bernd Petrovitsch wrote:
> On Fre, 2010-02-19 at 14:29 +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 11:33:30AM +0100, Bernd Petrovitsch wrote:
> > Basically often when people write:
> > if (!foo == bar) { ...
> >
> > What they mean is:
> > if (!(foo == bar)) { ...
But there are also cases where they mean what they've written.
> Ugh. The IMHO better way is
> if (foo != bar) { ...
In my case, the driver compares an "enabled" variable against a
"disabled" one; negating the comparison operator would obfuscate the
logic.
> > But if they really do mean the original code they could just write
> > this so it's clear to everyone:
> > if ((!foo) == bar) { ...
This is unnatural (especially in a simple example like this) because
the parens haven't been needed at all before smatch.
!foo==bar is always identical to !(foo==bar) for boolean values; to
avoid false positives, you could output the warning only when the code
is trying to manipulate non-boolean values. IMO the message would be
justified if it said "using suspicious boolean operations on non-boolean
types". (In fact, my driver uses types long and u8 in this expression,
so I will clean it up.)
Regards,
Clemens
_______________________________________________
Alsa-devel mailing list
Alsa-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://mailman.alsa-project.org/mailman/listinfo/alsa-devel
