Hi David,
On Thu, Oct 08, 2015 at 04:24:30PM +0200, David Herrmann wrote:
> Hi
>
> On Thu, Oct 8, 2015 at 1:31 PM, Sergei Zviagintsev wrote:
> > Replace the expression with more concise and readable equivalent. It can
> > be proven by opening parentheses:
> >
> > r & ~((p | i) & r) == r &
Hi David,
On Thu, Oct 08, 2015 at 04:24:30PM +0200, David Herrmann wrote:
> Hi
>
> On Thu, Oct 8, 2015 at 1:31 PM, Sergei Zviagintsev wrote:
> > Replace the expression with more concise and readable equivalent. It can
> > be proven by opening parentheses:
> >
> > r & ~((p |
Hi
On Thu, Oct 8, 2015 at 1:31 PM, Sergei Zviagintsev wrote:
> Replace the expression with more concise and readable equivalent. It can
> be proven by opening parentheses:
>
> r & ~((p | i) & r) == r & (~(p | i) | ~r) ==
> (r & ~(p | i)) | (r & ~r) == r & ~(p | i) == r & ~p & ~i
But
Replace the expression with more concise and readable equivalent. It can
be proven by opening parentheses:
r & ~((p | i) & r) == r & (~(p | i) | ~r) ==
(r & ~(p | i)) | (r & ~r) == r & ~(p | i) == r & ~p & ~i
Signed-off-by: Sergei Zviagintsev
---
ipc/kdbus/metadata.c | 2 +-
1 file
Replace the expression with more concise and readable equivalent. It can
be proven by opening parentheses:
r & ~((p | i) & r) == r & (~(p | i) | ~r) ==
(r & ~(p | i)) | (r & ~r) == r & ~(p | i) == r & ~p & ~i
Signed-off-by: Sergei Zviagintsev
---
Hi
On Thu, Oct 8, 2015 at 1:31 PM, Sergei Zviagintsev wrote:
> Replace the expression with more concise and readable equivalent. It can
> be proven by opening parentheses:
>
> r & ~((p | i) & r) == r & (~(p | i) | ~r) ==
> (r & ~(p | i)) | (r & ~r) == r & ~(p | i) ==
6 matches
Mail list logo