On Thu, Jun 1, 2017 at 8:15 AM, Christopher Li <sparse@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I have some very minor comment.
>
>> +static int handle_simple_switch(const char *arg, const char *name, int *flag)
>> +{
>> + int val = 1;
>> +
>> + // Prefixe "no-" mean to turn flag off.
>> + if (strncmp(arg, "no-", 3) == 0) {
>
> You don't need to compare to zero. This can be written as:
> if (!strncmp(arg, "no-", 3)) {
>
> That is how most of the strcmp done in sparse.
I'm not sure exactly what you want me to do in this case.
Is it just a comment for things to avoid in the future or would you
like me to change it
before it is integrated?
Of course, I know that it is not needed to compare it against zero,
I do it purposely because when I use "if (!x) " it means to me something like
"x is invalid" or "x is not true" and my mental model of string
compare never match
with "is invalid" or "is not true", so I use the "if (x == 0)" idioms
to be very clear
that for strcmp() a return value of 0 means "the two strings are equal".
But I don't mind, I can change it if you prefer.
What annoys me is that this code have been posted more than 7 weeks ago,
is now part of the pull request I sent 2 weeks ago and by now I have 35 topic
branches that depend on this code and I certainly would prefer to do more
usefull things than handling these nits and rewrite all my history.
-- Luc
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-sparse" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
