Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Wed, 17 Apr 2002 15:55:32 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Wed, 17 Apr 2002 15:55:31 -0400 Received: from e21.nc.us.ibm.com ([32.97.136.227]:8392 "EHLO e21.nc.us.ibm.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Wed, 17 Apr 2002 15:55:30 -0400 Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2002 13:53:55 -0700 From: "Martin J. Bligh" To: Rick Stevens , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: 2.5.8-dj1 : arch/i386/kernel/smpboot.c error Message-ID: <1831780000.1019076835@flay> In-Reply-To: <3CBDCD8D.1090802@vitalstream.com> X-Mailer: Mulberry/2.1.2 (Linux/x86) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org >>>> Even though clustered_apic_mode is 0, the compiler still complains >>>> about the second one and the first one doesn't depend on >>>> clustered_apic_mode at all. >>>> >>> Hmmm ... not sure why the compiler complains about the second one, >>> that's very strange ;-) >>> >> >> I agree. The cpp ouput clealy shows >> >> if ((0) && (numnodes > 1)) { >> >> so I'm not sure why there's a problem. > > Is the thing generating the "(0)" a macro? If so, then the rules #define clustered_apic_mode (0) > of C and the "&&" operator say that "if the first is false, the > second needn't even be evaluated". That's what I would have thought. But I don't think it's the second part that causes the warning, it's the thing *inside* the if clause. > Could that be what's causing the warning? To my mind, that's why we should *not* be getting a warning ? M. - 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/