Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner+willy=40w.ods.org@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id <S267642AbTALXa6>; Sun, 12 Jan 2003 18:30:58 -0500
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org
	id <S267641AbTALXa5>; Sun, 12 Jan 2003 18:30:57 -0500
Received: from matrix.roma2.infn.it ([141.108.255.2]:49582 "EHLO
	matrix.roma2.infn.it") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id <S267642AbTALXa4>; Sun, 12 Jan 2003 18:30:56 -0500
Message-ID: <33142.62.98.226.220.1042414777.squirrel@webmail.roma2.infn.it>
Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2003 00:39:37 +0100 (CET)
Subject: Re: any chance of 2.6.0-test*?
From: "Emiliano Gabrielli" <emiliano.gabrielli@roma2.infn.it>
To: <robw@optonline.net>
In-Reply-To: <1042413101.3162.184.camel@RobsPC.RobertWilkens.com>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0301121100380.14031-100000@home.transmeta.com>
        <1042400094.1208.26.camel@RobsPC.RobertWilkens.com>
        <20030112211530.GP27709@mea-ext.zmailer.org>
        <1042406849.3162.121.camel@RobsPC.RobertWilkens.com>
        <Pine.LNX.4.50L.0301121939170.26759-100000@imladris.surriel.com>
        <1042407845.3162.131.camel@RobsPC.RobertWilkens.com>
        <20030112214937.GM31238@vitelus.com>
        <1042409239.3162.136.camel@RobsPC.RobertWilkens.com>
        <20030112221802.GN31238@vitelus.com>
        <1042410897.1209.165.camel@RobsPC.RobertWilkens.com>
        <20030112225228.GP31238@vitelus.com>
        <1042413101.3162.184.camel@RobsPC.RobertWilkens.com>
X-Priority: 3
Importance: Normal
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
Cc: <aaronl@vitelus.com>, <riel@conectiva.com.br>, <matti.aarnio@zmailer.org>,
       <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailer: SquirrelMail (version 1.2.7)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1065
Lines: 34


<quote who="Rob Wilkens">
> On Sun, 2003-01-12 at 17:52, Aaron Lehmann wrote:
>> On Sun, Jan 12, 2003 at 05:34:58PM -0500, Rob Wilkens wrote:
>> > You're wrong.  You wouldn't have to jump over them any more than you have to jump
>> over the "goto" statement.
>>
>> The goto is a conditional jump. You propose replacing it with a
>> conditional jump past the error handling code predicated on the
>> opposite condition. Where's the improvement?
>
> The goto is absolutely not a conditional jump.  The if that precedes it is
> conditional.  The goto is not.  The if is already there.
>
> -Rob


Oh my God ... really you are the only one on this list not to understand that hi has
mispelled ?!?

Now I understand the reason of your trollness !!

-- 
Emiliano Gabrielli

dip. di Fisica
2? Universit? di Roma "Tor Vergata"


-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/