Hello Antti! > actually it reports, when run --strict mode I checked this once, but I thought this would be too aggressive changes. >> * many cases where if (ret != 0), which generally should be written as if >> (ret). If you expect it is just error ret value, then prefer if (ret), but >> if> ret has some other meaning like it returns number of bytes then if you >> expect 0-bytes returned (ret != 0) is also valid. In fact I did no real code changes to keep the impact as little as possible. But I agree fully with you and in my drivers I used always (ret) or (!ret). Although this has been changed in my new company when it comes to certified software ... . I will try also to compile with GCC 7.1.1, if I get one for my system. >> * unnecessary looking line split like that: >> if (a >> & b) I am sure I did this because of the 80 col limit, but I will look again. THX for your review and the valuable input. I will add you the receiver list next time. BR, Jasmin
