On 31/07/23 19:03, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 31, 2023 at 11:54:53AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
>> On Mon, 31 Jul 2023 15:07:52 +0300
>> Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> > On Sat, Jul 29, 2023 at 03:55:47PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
>> > > > @@ -1761,6 +1761,11 @@ static int parse_pred(const char *str, void *data,
>> > > > FILTER_PRED_FN_CPUMASK;
>> > > > } else if (field->filter_type == FILTER_CPU) {
>> > > > pred->fn_num = FILTER_PRED_FN_CPU_CPUMASK;
>> > > > + } else if (single) {
>> > > > + pred->op = pred->op == OP_BAND ? OP_EQ : pred->op;
>> > >
>> > > Nit, the above can be written as:
>> > >
>> > > pred->op = pret->op != OP_BAND ? : OP_EQ;
>> > >
>> >
>> > Heh. Those are not equivalent. The right way to write this is:
>>
>> You mean because of my typo?
>
> No, I hadn't seen the s/pred/pret/ typo. Your code does:
>
> if (pred->op != OP_BAND)
> pred->op = true;
> else
> pred->op OP_EQ;
>
> Realy we should probably trigger a static checker warning any time
> someone does a compare operations as part of a "x = comparison ?: bar;
> Years ago, someone asked me to do that with regards to error codes like:
>
> return ret < 0 ?: -EINVAL;
>
> but I don't remember the results.
>
FWIW this is caught by GCC:
error: the omitted middle operand in ?: will always be ‘true’, suggest explicit middle operand [-Werror=parentheses]
pred->op = pred->op != OP_BAND ? : OP_EQ;
> regards,
> dan carpenter
