| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Fri, 08 Sep 2006 20:34:31 -0600 From: ebiederm@...ssion.com (Eric W. Biederman) To: Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@...ux01.gwdg.de> Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] proc: Make the generation of the self symlink table driven. Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@...ux01.gwdg.de> writes: >>Regardless this isn't a case where the C precedence is wrong. >>"a < b | 1" is an example of C getting the precedence wrong. > > Blame the creator of C. > But maybe this was intended, since | is a logical operation, as is <, > while + is an arithmetic one. Programmatically probably not making much > sense, bitfield |= a < b is one use case. I do. As I recall the history | and & predate the introduction of || and && and originally served both functions, so the got the lower precedence. >>Having to remember where C is wrong and in what circumstances is >>harder than just putting in parenthesis. > > The GNU C compiler will warn you where such may happen, but > currently does so - too bad - only with && and ||. > c.c:2: warning: suggest parentheses around && within || You see my point :) I have better things to worry about when writing and reviewing code than remember what the precedence rules are. Anyway I have figured out how to remove the need for the - 1, and the trailing empty entries in proc, patch to follow shortly. Eric - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists