Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Wed, 17 Apr 2002 16:40:44 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Wed, 17 Apr 2002 16:40:43 -0400 Received: from roc-24-95-199-137.rochester.rr.com ([24.95.199.137]:61171 "EHLO www.kroptech.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Wed, 17 Apr 2002 16:40:43 -0400 Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2002 16:40:37 -0400 From: Adam Kropelin To: "Martin J. Bligh" Cc: Rick Stevens , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: 2.5.8-dj1 : arch/i386/kernel/smpboot.c error Message-ID: <20020417204037.GA292@www.kroptech.com> In-Reply-To: <20020417123044.GA8833@www.kroptech.com> <2673595977.1019032098@[10.10.2.3]> <20020417191718.GA8660@www.kroptech.com> <3CBDCD8D.1090802@vitalstream.com> <1831780000.1019076835@flay> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Apr 17, 2002 at 01:53:55PM -0700, Martin J. Bligh wrote: > > 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. Exactly. > > Could that be what's causing the warning? > > To my mind, that's why we should *not* be getting a warning ? Indeed. The optimization step that (presumably) removes the body of the if() must happen after the body has been fully evaluated. Makes sense, I guess, now that I think about it... --Adam - 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/