On Tue, 2007-08-28 at 10:17 +1200, David Empson wrote: > 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.
I agree. Kieran _______________________________________________ lwip-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lwip-users
