On Fri, 2005-04-15 at 00:35 +0200, Alex Riesen wrote: > On 4/14/05, Martin Schlemmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > + if (update_mode && changed & MODE_CHANGED) > > + chmod(ce->name, ce->st_mode); > > it's "if ((update_mode && changed) & MODE_CHANGED)" > Did you really mean that? >
No, '&' have a higher priority (weight?) than '&&'. Although, yes, it
might be better style to add brackets.
But just to make you happy, let me prove it:
-----
$ cat foo1.c
int main() {
int foo, bar;
if (foo && bar & 1)
return 1;
return 0;
}
$ cat foo2.c
int main() {
int foo, bar;
if (foo && (bar & 1))
return 1;
return 0;
}
$ cat foo3.c
int main() {
int foo, bar;
if ((foo && bar) & 1)
return 1;
return 0;
}
$ gcc -c -S foo1.c -o foo1.S
$ gcc -c -S foo2.c -o foo2.S
$ gcc -c -S foo3.c -o foo3.S
$ diff -u foo1.S foo2.S
--- foo1.S 2005-04-15 07:42:27.000000000 +0200
+++ foo2.S 2005-04-15 07:42:32.000000000 +0200
@@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
- .file "foo1.c"
+ .file "foo2.c"
.text
.globl main
.type main, @function
$ diff -u foo1.S foo3.S
--- foo1.S 2005-04-15 07:42:27.000000000 +0200
+++ foo3.S 2005-04-15 07:42:35.000000000 +0200
@@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
- .file "foo1.c"
+ .file "foo3.c"
.text
.globl main
.type main, @function
@@ -9,9 +9,14 @@
andl $-16, %esp
movl $0, %eax
subl %eax, %esp
+ movl $0, -16(%ebp)
cmpl $0, -4(%ebp)
- je .L2
- movl -8(%ebp), %eax
+ je .L3
+ cmpl $0, -8(%ebp)
+ je .L3
+ movl $1, -16(%ebp)
+.L3:
+ movl -16(%ebp), %eax
andl $1, %eax
testl %eax, %eax
je .L2
-----
--
Martin Schlemmer
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
