On Tue, Sep 28, 2021 at 11:11 AM Yucong Sun <fallentree@xxxxxx> wrote:
>
> "?:" is a GNU C extension, some environment has warning flags for its
> use, or even prohibit it directly. This patch avoid triggering these
> problems by simply expand it to its full form, no functionality change.
>
> Signed-off-by: Yucong Sun <fallentree@xxxxxx>
> ---
Given there is no bug in the first place, it's not a fix, and thus
should target bpf-next tree.
> tools/bpf/bpftool/gen.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/tools/bpf/bpftool/gen.c b/tools/bpf/bpftool/gen.c
> index d40d92bbf0e4..85071b6fa4ad 100644
> --- a/tools/bpf/bpftool/gen.c
> +++ b/tools/bpf/bpftool/gen.c
> @@ -803,7 +803,7 @@ static int do_skeleton(int argc, char **argv)
> } \n\
> \n\
> err = %1$s__create_skeleton(obj); \n\
> - err = err ?: bpf_object__open_skeleton(obj->skeleton, opts);\n\
> + err = err ? err : bpf_object__open_skeleton(obj->skeleton, opts);\n\
err+err+err in one row looks quite bad. If we can't use ?: for
shortness, maybe let's just do
if (!err)
err = <some operation>
It's more verbose than the original version, but it's more obvious and
sort of canonical C?
> if (err) \n\
> goto err_out; \n\
> \n\
> --
> 2.30.2
>
