Hi David, I tend to agree. I don't think the code should be distorted to compensate for a bug in a particular compiler. IMHO best solution would be for the compiler to be fixed and I am happy to patch my code until that happens.
Cheers Dave > I think you meant "should be negligible". > > > Performance issues aside, if I was reading code which did a "greater than > zero" test I > would immediately be wondering what was special about the value being > negative, then > discover the 'acc' variable was unsigned, then wonder why someone had written > it using > greater-than instead of not-equal. > > My opinion (for what it is worth) is that LWIP should stick with either the > original form > (number 1) or the more explicit form (number 2) which has already been > checked in, but > Dave should patch his own copy to work around the bug in his compiler. _______________________________________________ lwip-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lwip-users
