Re: [ft-devel] Re: meddlesome compiler warns against for( ...; ...;...) ;

2008-10-15 Thread mpsuzuki 
On Wed, 15 Oct 2008 00:42:36 +0900
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Turner has post easier-to-eye fix, I will commit within
24 hours. Sorry for my lated action. The FreeType2 tree
in my Macintosh is too messed to check an atomic test.

http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/freetype-devel/2008-10/msg00030.html

Just I've committed to CVS. Thank you everybody!

Regards,
mpsuzuki


___
Freetype-devel mailing list
Freetype-devel@nongnu.org
http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/freetype-devel

Re: [ft-devel] Re: meddlesome compiler warns against for( ...; ...;...) ;

2008-10-14 Thread Sean McBride 
On 10/11/08 8:00 AM, Werner LEMBERG said:

  Yes, probably, which means we've just a formatting `error'.  George?

 Er, the point of the loop is to test if coords is the same as
 blend-normalizedcoords.  If the two arrays are the same then
 nothing has changed.

I've reformatted it.  Thanks to all.

I didn't look how you formatted it, but note that in C++ (which I
realize freetype is not written in) gcc 4.2 will warn for code like this:

for (i = 0; i  10; i++);

But it will not warn if you do:

for (i = 0; i  10; i++) ;

or

for (i = 0; i  10; i++) {}

Oddly, the warning only applies to C++ and not C.

Just something to consider...

--

Sean McBride, B. Eng [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Rogue Researchwww.rogue-research.com
Mac Software Developer  Montréal, Québec, Canada




___
Freetype-devel mailing list
Freetype-devel@nongnu.org
http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/freetype-devel

Re: [ft-devel] Re: meddlesome compiler warns against for( ...; ...;...) ;

2008-10-14 Thread mpsuzuki 
On Tue, 14 Oct 2008 10:59:24 -0400
Sean McBride [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

On 10/11/08 8:00 AM, Werner LEMBERG said:

  Yes, probably, which means we've just a formatting `error'.  George?
 
 Er, the point of the loop is to test if coords is the same as
 blend-normalizedcoords.  If the two arrays are the same then
 nothing has changed.

I've reformatted it.  Thanks to all.

I didn't look how you formatted it, but note that in C++ (which I
realize freetype is not written in) gcc 4.2 will warn for code like this:

for (i = 0; i  10; i++);

But it will not warn if you do:

for (i = 0; i  10; i++) ;

or

for (i = 0; i  10; i++) {}

Oddly, the warning only applies to C++ and not C.

Just something to consider...

Thank you for information.

Turner has post easier-to-eye fix, I will commit within
24 hours. Sorry for my lated action. The FreeType2 tree
in my Macintosh is too messed to check an atomic test.

http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/freetype-devel/2008-10/msg00030.html

Regards,
mpsuzuki


___
Freetype-devel mailing list
Freetype-devel@nongnu.org
http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/freetype-devel

Re: [ft-devel] Re: meddlesome compiler warns against for( ...; ...;...) ;

2008-10-11 Thread Werner LEMBERG 

  Yes, probably, which means we've just a formatting `error'.  George?
 
 Er, the point of the loop is to test if coords is the same as
 blend-normalizedcoords.  If the two arrays are the same then
 nothing has changed.

I've reformatted it.  Thanks to all.


Werner


___
Freetype-devel mailing list
Freetype-devel@nongnu.org
http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/freetype-devel

Re: [ft-devel] Re: meddlesome compiler warns against for( ...; ...;...) ;

2008-10-10 Thread gww 
 I think, your comment proposes to remove the ; at the end
 of line 910.
 Um, yes, but it seems that I'm wrong.

 It looks like very strange. So, I guessed the original intention
 by the author was
 
 for ( i = 0;
   i  num_coords  blend-normalizedcoords[i] == coords[i];
   ++i ) { }

 Yes, probably, which means we've just a formatting `error'.  George?

Er, the point of the loop is to test if coords is the same as 
blend-normalizedcoords.  If the two arrays are the same then nothing has 
changed. 
  So nothing should be done inside the loop. If you prefer using {} to 
represent a null statement, that's fine with me. I tend to use ; myself, but 
if freetype's conventions are different I apologize.


___
Freetype-devel mailing list
Freetype-devel@nongnu.org
http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/freetype-devel

RE: [ft-devel] Re: meddlesome compiler warns against for( ...; ...; ...) ;

2008-10-09 Thread Graham Asher 
However, the logic is correct, is it not? It looks as if the code is
checking whether all of the items in the array fulfil a condition. So it
should be fixed as originally suggested by mpsuzuki, without changing the
logic, but preventing the warning.

Graham

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Werner LEMBERG
Sent: 09 October 2008 13:28
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: freetype-devel@nongnu.org
Subject: [ft-devel] Re: meddlesome compiler warns against for( ...;
...;...) ; 


 During the play with legacy CodeWarrior and MPW, I found
 these legacy C compilers warn the coding style like
 
   for ( i = 0 ; i  N ; i++ ) ;
   ...
 
 They guess ; is a mistake (by the author) and
 the procedure ... is expected (by the author) to be looped.

Of course it's a mistake!  Please fix it as you prefer.


 Werner


___
Freetype-devel mailing list
Freetype-devel@nongnu.org
http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/freetype-devel



___
Freetype-devel mailing list
Freetype-devel@nongnu.org
http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/freetype-devel

Re: [ft-devel] Re: meddlesome compiler warns against for( ...; ...;...) ;

2008-10-09 Thread mpsuzuki 
Dear Werner,

I'm too stupid to close this issue, I'm quite sorry for
keeping this thread. I don't have good sample font to
test the logic is right /or not, so I want to be sure
about the original intention of the author.

Here I quote the current code in src/truetype/ttgxvar.c.

   907  {
   908for ( i = 0;
   909  i  num_coords  blend-normalizedcoords[i] == coords[i];
   910  ++i );
   911  if ( i == num_coords )
   912manageCvt = mcvt_retain;
   913  else
   914manageCvt = mcvt_load;
   915  
   916/* If we don't change the blend coords then we don't need to do  
*/
   917/* anything to the cvt table.  It will be correct.  Otherwise we 
*/
   918/* no longer have the original cvt (it was modified when we set  
*/
   919/* the blend last time), so we must reload and then modify it.   
*/
   920  }


I think, your comment proposes to remove the ; at the end
of line 910. It changes the current logic to another one.
The changed logic would be:

for ( i = 0;
  i  num_coords  blend-normalizedcoords[i] == coords[i];
  ++i )
{
  if ( i == num_coords )
manageCvt = mcvt_retain;
  else
manageCvt = mcvt_load;
}

But, if ( i == num_coords ) manageCvt = mcvt_retain;  would
not be executed, because the for loop already restricts i
as i  num_coords. Therefore, the executed procedure would be
simplified aslike:

for ( i = 0;
  i  num_coords  blend-normalizedcoords[i] == coords[i];
  ++i )
{
  manageCvt = mcvt_load;
}

During the loop, manageCvt is not used at all, and, the variable
i is not used in following part of the function, so, it would be
further simplified aslike:

manageCvt = mcvt_load;

It looks like very strange. So, I guessed the original intention
by the author was

for ( i = 0;
  i  num_coords  blend-normalizedcoords[i] == coords[i];
  ++i ) { }

if ( i == num_coords )
  manageCvt = mcvt_retain;
else
  manageCvt = mcvt_load;

Using { } instead of ; looks ugly, so I divided the looping
restriction into giving max of i  and coods[i] comparison,
aslike:

for ( i = 0; i  num_coords; ++i )
  if ( blend-normalizedcoords[i] != coords[i] )
break; 

if ( i == num_coords )
  manageCvt = mcvt_retain;
else
  manageCvt = mcvt_load;

Werner, my proposal in above is right?
Or, simple removing ; from the end of for loop is right?

Regards,
mpsuzuki


On Thu, 09 Oct 2008 20:13:18 +0200 (CEST)
Werner LEMBERG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


 However, the logic is correct, is it not? It looks as if the code is
 checking whether all of the items in the array fulfil a condition.
 So it should be fixed as originally suggested by mpsuzuki, without
 changing the logic, but preventing the warning.

I mean that the `;' in the same line as the `for' command is a
mistake.  Sorry for being unclear.


Werner


___
Freetype-devel mailing list
Freetype-devel@nongnu.org
http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/freetype-devel