James Bottomley wrote:
> On Tue, 2009-11-03 at 15:47 +0530, Penchala Narasimha Reddy Chilakala,
> TLS-Chennai wrote:
>> This is all spurious bracket addition; it doesn't really have any place
>> in a code fix.
>>
>> <Narasimha Reddy>: As we know that if we do not keep bracket
>> appropriately, some times compilers will behave differently and it may
>> use different instructions and evaluate differently. So to avoid those
>> kinds of issues, we added those brackets. It is not a code fix, but it
>> is compiler fix (compilers should not interpret differently). If
>> compiler interprets differently then the logic may behave differently
>> as against to your intentional behavior. I hope you agree with me.
>
> Not really ... in principle we try to fix the compilers rather than work
> around their bugs. Which compilers are exhibiting the problem? ...
> because they'll affect more than just aacraid.
Huh?
Expression before the patch: a > (b & c) ? d : e
Expression after the patch: a > ((b & c) ? d : e)
That's clearly different; a C compiler would have to be extremely buggy
to get such expressions wrong. So which is really the right one; before
or after?
Before:
if (upsg->sg[i].count > (dev->adapter_info.options & AAC_OPT_NEW_COMM)
? (dev->scsi_host_ptr->max_sectors << 9) : 65536) {
After:
if (upsg->sg[i].count > (
(dev->adapter_info.options & AAC_OPT_NEW_COMM)
? (dev->scsi_host_ptr->max_sectors << 9) : 65536
)) {
--
Stefan Richter
-=====-==--= =-== --=--
http://arcgraph.de/sr/
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
