From owner-svn-src-head@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Jul 5 14:39:55 2013 Return-Path: Delivered-To: svn-src-head@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1E12B91F; Fri, 5 Jul 2013 14:39:55 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from dim@FreeBSD.org) Received: from tensor.andric.com (tensor.andric.com [IPv6:2001:7b8:3a7:1:2d0:b7ff:fea0:8c26]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D7CBA1060; Fri, 5 Jul 2013 14:39:54 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [IPv6:2001:7b8:3a7::55fe:86b3:1ee:6af5] (unknown [IPv6:2001:7b8:3a7:0:55fe:86b3:1ee:6af5]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by tensor.andric.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 0A4E95C43; Fri, 5 Jul 2013 16:39:53 +0200 (CEST) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.5 \(1508\)) Subject: Re: svn commit: r252375 - head/lib/libfetch From: Dimitry Andric In-Reply-To: <86hag99yc6.fsf@nine.des.no> Date: Fri, 5 Jul 2013 16:39:51 +0200 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <838BA1C8-4950-42EE-92D5-A26A67EA7DF3@FreeBSD.org> References: <201306291551.r5TFpRc6022283@svn.freebsd.org> <86hag99yc6.fsf@nine.des.no> To: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Dag-Erling_Sm=F8rgrav?= X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1508) Cc: svn-src-head@freebsd.org, svn-src-all@freebsd.org, Tim Kientzle , src-committers@freebsd.org X-BeenThere: svn-src-head@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: SVN commit messages for the src tree for head/-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 05 Jul 2013 14:39:55 -0000 On Jul 5, 2013, at 10:59, Dag-Erling Sm=F8rgrav wrote: > Tim Kientzle writes: >> Log: >> Fix -Wunsequenced warning. >>=20 >> Submitted by: dt71@gmx.com >=20 > Neither approved by nor even discussed with the author and maintainer. >=20 > (not saying it's wrong, but...) Actually the warning (from clang trunk) was technically wrong, as a function call is a sequence point. I reported that upstream, and it got fixed in the mean time. That said, the construction still looked a little dodgy, and if the function call ever gets changed into a macro invocation, there could be trouble. :-) -Dimitry