Eric Blake wrote: > Bob Proulx wrote: > > Or is a return 0 already defaulted? It stood out to me that the > > previous return was unconditional and without an else or a > > fallthrough this is a change from the previous control flow. > > > > - return !(stdbuf == 1);]]) > > + if (stdbuf != 1) > > + return 1; > > + return 0;]]) > > Explicitly listing 'return 0;' here would result in a doubled-up return > 0 in the overall conftest.c file.
Gotcha! That there is already a default return 0 answers my question. Thanks, Bob
