W dniu 2014-11-16 o 11:19, Eric Kohl pisze:
>
> Unfortunately, several month ago, some patches were applied to the Wine
> code that replaced expressions like "(a < 7) ? TRUE : FALSE" by "(a <
> 7)". These patches could be the origin of some bugs and should be
> reverted from the Wine codebase.
>
>
> Regards,
> Eric
This is not true for logical operators:
C11(ISO/IEC 9899:201x) §6.5.8 /Relational operators/
Each of the operators < (less than), > (greater than), <= (less than
or equal to), and >= (greater than or equal to) shall yield 1 if the
specified relation is true and 0 if it is false.107) The result has
type int.
The problem exists if we assign value obtained from bit operators e.g.
"BOOLEAN HasFlag = a & SOME_FLAG"
Regards,
Rafał
>
> Am 12.11.2014 10:48, schrieb Love Nystrom:
>> Grep'ing for [ \t]*==[ \t]*TRUE and [ \t]*!=[ \t]*TRUE revealed some 400
>> matches..
>> That's *400 potential malfunctions begging to happen*, as previously
>> concluded.
>>
>> If you *must*, for some obscure reason, code an explicit truth-value
>> comparison,
>> for God's sake make it (boolVal != FALSE) or (boolVal == FALSE), which
>> is safe,
>> because a BOOL has 2^32-2 TRUE values !!!
>>
>> However, the more efficient "if ( boolVal )" and "if ( !boolVal )" ought
>> to be *mandatory*.
>>
>> I do hope nobody will challenge that "if ( boolVal )" equals "if (
>> boolVal != FALSE )",
>> and does *not* equal "if ( boolVal == TRUE )", when boolVal is BOOL or
>> BOOLEAN...
>>
>> I've patched all those potential errors against the current trunk.
>> In most cases a simple removal of "== TRUE" was sufficient, however in
>> asserts I replaced it with "!= FALSE", since that may be clearer when
>> triggered.
>> The only places I let it pass was in pure debug strings and comments.
>>
>> As this is a *fairly extensive patch*, I would very much appreciate if a
>> *prioritized regression test* could be run by you guys who do such things,
>> since this may actually fix some "mysterious" malfunctions, or introduce
>> bugs that did not trigger in my alpha test.
>>
>> My own alpha test was limited to building and installing it on VMware
>> Player 6,
>> and concluding that "it appears to run without obvious malfunctions".
>> *Actually, when compared to a pre-patch build, one "mysterious" crash
>> disappeared!*
>>
>> The patch has been submitted as bug CORE-8799, and is also included
>> inline in this post.
>>
>> Best Regards
>> // Love
> _______________________________________________
> Ros-dev mailing list
> Ros-dev@reactos.org
> http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
_______________________________________________
Ros-dev mailing list
Ros-dev@reactos.org
http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
