Well I already checked in but I did notice that alignment
issue and fixed that before pushing.
-phil.
On 8/2/16, 3:10 PM, Jim Graham wrote:
Also, fix the line of "\" at the right edge of the source and add {}
around the body of the if statement...
...jim
On 08/02/2016 03:06 PM,
I agree as well. Assignments really aren't ever needed inside if
statements...
...jim
On 08/02/2016 03:06 PM, Vadim Pakhnushev wrote:
Or as
j = w & 1;
if (j != 0) {
as in other longer cases. Too much parentheses to my taste.
Vadim
On 03.08.2016 1:04, Jim Graham
Or as
j = w & 1;
if (j != 0) {
as in other longer cases. Too much parentheses to my taste.
Vadim
On 03.08.2016 1:04, Jim Graham wrote:
In that case, then I'd write it as "if ((j = (w & 1)) != 0)" to make
it clear that the LHS is an assignment. A casual reading of the code
might see this as a
Also, fix the line of "\" at the right edge of the source and add {}
around the body of the if statement...
...jim
On 08/02/2016 03:06 PM, Vadim Pakhnushev wrote:
Or as
j = w & 1;
if (j != 0) {
as in other longer cases. Too much parentheses to my taste.
Vadim
On
In that case, then I'd write it as "if ((j = (w & 1)) != 0)" to make it
clear that the LHS is an assignment. A casual reading of the code might
see this as a comparison with an extra set of parentheses until someone
counts the equal signs...
...jim
On 08/02/2016
That's what warning said: "place parentheses *around the assignment *to
silence this warning"
Vadim
On 02.08.2016 8:48, Prasanta Sadhukhan wrote:
+1. Only one thing,
mlib_c_ImageCopy.c#185 do we really need that extra parentheses,
((j = (w & 1))). I guess this should just do if (j = (w &
+1. Only one thing,
mlib_c_ImageCopy.c#185 do we really need that extra parentheses,
((j = (w & 1))). I guess this should just do if (j = (w & 1)), isn't it? Regards
Prasanta
On 8/1/2016 10:43 PM, Phil Race wrote:
Looking for another "+1" ...
-phil.
On 07/29/2016 10:13 PM, Vadim Pakhnushev
Looking for another "+1" ...
-phil.
On 07/29/2016 10:13 PM, Vadim Pakhnushev wrote:
Looks good!
Vadim
On 30.07.2016 6:49, Philip Race wrote:
See http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~prr/8074843.1/
Also passes JPRT
-phil.
On 7/29/16, 7:35 AM, Vadim Pakhnushev wrote:
On 29.07.2016 17:30, Philip
Looks good!
Vadim
On 30.07.2016 6:49, Philip Race wrote:
See http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~prr/8074843.1/
Also passes JPRT
-phil.
On 7/29/16, 7:35 AM, Vadim Pakhnushev wrote:
On 29.07.2016 17:30, Philip Race wrote:
On 7/29/16, 7:00 AM, Vadim Pakhnushev wrote:
On 29.07.2016 16:28, Philip
On 29.07.2016 17:30, Philip Race wrote:
On 7/29/16, 7:00 AM, Vadim Pakhnushev wrote:
On 29.07.2016 16:28, Philip Race wrote:
On 7/29/16, 3:23 AM, Vadim Pakhnushev wrote:
Phil,
I guess you wanted to remove the lines in the Awt2dLibraries.gmk?
Ah, yes. Not just disable them
Do you
On 7/29/16, 7:00 AM, Vadim Pakhnushev wrote:
On 29.07.2016 16:28, Philip Race wrote:
On 7/29/16, 3:23 AM, Vadim Pakhnushev wrote:
Phil,
I guess you wanted to remove the lines in the Awt2dLibraries.gmk?
Ah, yes. Not just disable them
Do you think it's worth it to rewrite these
On 29.07.2016 16:28, Philip Race wrote:
On 7/29/16, 3:23 AM, Vadim Pakhnushev wrote:
Phil,
I guess you wanted to remove the lines in the Awt2dLibraries.gmk?
Ah, yes. Not just disable them
Do you think it's worth it to rewrite these assignments as separate
assignment and a condition?
On 7/29/16, 3:23 AM, Vadim Pakhnushev wrote:
Phil,
I guess you wanted to remove the lines in the Awt2dLibraries.gmk?
Ah, yes. Not just disable them
Do you think it's worth it to rewrite these assignments as separate
assignment and a condition?
Especially long ones with a lot of
Phil,
I guess you wanted to remove the lines in the Awt2dLibraries.gmk?
Do you think it's worth it to rewrite these assignments as separate
assignment and a condition?
Especially long ones with a lot of parentheses?
Like this one, instead of
if ((j = ((mlib_s32) ((mlib_addr) psrc_row & 4) >>
14 matches
Mail list logo
