On Mon, Jul 9, 2018 at 6:03 PM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 09, 2018 at 05:52:04PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
>> for_each_something(foo)
>> if (foo->bla)
>> call_bla(foo);
>> else
>> call_default(foo);
>>
>> Totally contrived, but this complains. Liberally sprinkling {} also shuts
>> up the compiler, but it's a bit confusing given that a plain for {;;} is
>> totally fine. And it's confusing since at first glance the compiler
>> complaining about nested if and ambigous else doesn't make sense since
>> clearly there's only 1 if there.
>
> Ah, so the pattern the compiler tries to warn about is:
>
> if (foo)
> if (bar)
> /* stmts1 */
> else
> /* stmts2 *
>
> Because it might not be immediately obvious with which if the else goes.
> Which is fair enough I suppose.
Yup. I'll augment the commit message of patch 1 to include this as
example, and why it's confusing in context of a for_each_foo macro
containing an if().
> OK, ACK.
Thanks, Daniel
--
Daniel Vetter
Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
+41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
