> On Nov. 10, 2012, 10:21 p.m., Rolf Eike Beer wrote:
> > A simple way to verify if this is correct is check if you and the compiler
> > agree on the code. Run "make -n" in the build tree to get the full compiler
> > command line, then insert a "-S" (assuming you are using gcc) and change
> > the -o to point to a temporary file. This will output the assembler code.
> > Do this with and without your modifications and look if the result is still
> > the same.
yes, I've done it. They match.
bool kk1()
{
int a = 1;
int b = 2;
return (!a ^ b);
}
bool kk2()
{
int a = 1;
int b = 2;
return (!(a ^ b));
}
bool kk3()
{
int a = 1;
int b = 2;
return (!(a) ^ b);
}
kk1 and kk3 produce the same assembler output.
But the problem is if the author really wanted the parenthesis that way or not.
for example, (!a) ^ b (what gcc produces) vs. !(a ^ b) (what the author
wanted?)
- Jaime Torres
-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/107213/#review21785
-----------------------------------------------------------
On Nov. 5, 2012, 3:13 p.m., Jaime Torres Amate wrote:
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/107213/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
>
> (Updated Nov. 5, 2012, 3:13 p.m.)
>
>
> Review request for kdelibs.
>
>
> Description
> -------
>
> place some parenthesis around ! operators, with less priority than ^
> operators.
> place some parenthesis around = inside conditions
> check for n not being null before using it
> simplify if (a==true) return true else return false;
>
>
> Diffs
> -----
>
> khtml/khtml_caret.cpp 45fd90c
> khtml/rendering/render_inline.cpp acfc1e4
> khtml/rendering/render_object.cpp f37627c
> solid/solid/backends/wmi/wmiopticaldisc.cpp c6e390f
>
> Diff: http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/107213/diff/
>
>
> Testing
> -------
>
> I've been using this code several weeks.
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Jaime Torres Amate
>
>
