Date: Fri, 30 Apr 1999 19:10:01 -0700 (PDT) From: "Daniel C. Sobral" <dcs@newsguy.com> To: freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: kern/11411: code typo in clones.c: "if ((mpu_config = NULL))" should be "if ((mpu_config != NULL))" Message-ID: <199905010210.TAA01473@freefall.freebsd.org>
index | next in thread | raw e-mail
The following reply was made to PR kern/11411; it has been noted by GNATS.
From: "Daniel C. Sobral" <dcs@newsguy.com>
To: cpeterso@cs.washington.edu
Cc: freebsd-gnats-submit@FreeBSD.ORG,
Luigi Rizzo <luigi@labinfo.iet.unipi.it>
Subject: Re: kern/11411: code typo in clones.c: "if ((mpu_config = NULL))" should
be "if ((mpu_config != NULL))"
Date: Sat, 01 May 1999 10:57:47 +0900
cpeterso@cs.washington.edu wrote:
>
> >Description:
> i386/isa/snd/clones.c (line 217): if (X=0) 3:
> if((mpu_config=NULL))
> should be:
> if ((mpu_config != NULL)) {
Not exactly. Man style.
That said... The double parenthesis on the above line do nothing
except *HIDE* the error! That is, supposing it *is* an error (I
cannot conceive it not being one)... This is just the kind of thing
that should *not* be done (thoughless "fix" of warnings).
Now, that said... It is all the better that it is written this way.
If your changes were to be committed, it would introduce a bug.
See, mpu_config is a local variable, and it is *not* static, and it
has *not* been initialized. So, the above line initializes it, and,
at the same time, executes the correct branch of the code. After
your changes, we would risk values being initialized from structure
elements of an unitialized pointer.
--
Daniel C. Sobral (8-DCS)
dcs@newsguy.com
dcs@freebsd.org
"Proof of Trotsky's farsightedness if that _none_ of his
predictions have come true yet."
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-bugs" in the body of the message
help
Want to link to this message? Use this
URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199905010210.TAA01473>