On Fri, 22 Apr 2016 10:01:18 +0200 Hiltjo Posthuma <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 03:24:47AM +0200, Mattias Andrée
> wrote:
> > Also in man page: [-r | -s | -w] => (-r | -s | -w)
> >
> > 8< ... snippity snip ...>8
> >
> > int
> > @@ -141,7 +141,7 @@ main(int argc, char *argv[])
> > else if (argc == 1)
> > dev = argv[0];
> >
> > - if ((rflag ^ sflag ^ wflag) == 0)
> > + if (rflag + sflag + wflag != 1)
> > eprintf("missing or incompatible
> > function\n");
>
> This is not the same in behaviour. Is it intended? I
> think the patch makes sense though.
Yes, this is intended. I believe it must have been meant
that exactly one of them must be used, not either zero
of two of them.
>
> Thanks for the patches,
>
> Kind regards,
> Hiltjo
>
pgprHJho7ATJ2.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
