Hello Geert and Kieran,
On Monday 22 May 2017 15:00:27 Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 2:52 PM, Kieran Bingham wrote:
> > My only distaste there is having to then add the [i-1] index to the
> > sg_tables.
> >
> > I have just experimented with:
> >
> > fail:
> > for (; i-- != 0;) {
> > struct sg_table *sgt = &rstate->sg_tables[i];
> > ...
> > }
> >
> > This performs the correct loops, with the correct indexes, but does the
> > decrement in the condition offend coding styles ?
> >
> > If that's disliked even more I'll just apply your suggestion.
>
> You can still use "i-- > 0", which looks a little bit better IMHO.
I'm fine with that option too.
--
Regards,
Laurent Pinchart
