On 09/15/2015 03:31 PM, Julia Lawall wrote: > On Tue, 15 Sep 2015, SF Markus Elfring wrote: > >>>> v@p >>>> ( >>>> *< 0 >>>> | >>>> *<= 0 >>>> ) >>> It does not, and is not intended to, work. The branches of a disjunction >>> should be complete expressions. >> Will the following SmPL approach be more appropriate then? >> >> ( >> *v@p < 0 >> | >> *v@p <= 0 >> ) > Actually, all of > > v < 0 (never true) > v <= 0 (same as v == 0) > v >= 0 (always true) > > would seem to merit attention. Andrzej, what do you think? You are right, the 2nd case should be also addressed, such code is misleading. I will prepare then 2nd version of the patch. Regards Andrzej > > julia > > >> Regards, >> Markus >> -- >> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kernel-janitors" in >> the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html >> -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kernel-janitors" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
