tis 2012-07-03 klockan 07:52 +0200 skrev Kinkie:
++(conn_-getPeer()-stats.conn_open);
IMHO we should consistently use bracketing as above to clarify in situations
like this where there is any complex location syntax.
It is the latter, but I had the some doubt so I double-checked. I
Usually the other ++ works better in readability
conn_-getPeer()-stats.conn_open++;
or even
conn_-getPeer()-stats.conn_open += 1;
With GCC this code:
15 int a=0;
16 a++;
17 ++a;
18 a+=1;
gets assembled as:
16 a++;
= 0x0804873c
On 07/02/2012 04:34 PM, Amos Jeffries wrote:
On 03.07.2012 03:30, Francesco Chemolli wrote:
-if (conn_-getPeer())
-conn_-getPeer()-stats.conn_open++;
+if (peer *peer=(conn_-getPeer()))
+++peer-stats.conn_open;
lookupLocalAddress();
Two points:
1)
On 03.07.2012 21:27, Kinkie wrote:
Usually the other ++ works better in readability
conn_-getPeer()-stats.conn_open++;
or even
conn_-getPeer()-stats.conn_open += 1;
With GCC this code:
15 int a=0;
16 a++;
17 ++a;
18 a+=1;
gets assembled
On 03.07.2012 03:30, Francesco Chemolli wrote:
-if (conn_-getPeer())
-conn_-getPeer()-stats.conn_open++;
+if (peer *peer=(conn_-getPeer()))
+++peer-stats.conn_open;
lookupLocalAddress();
Two points:
1) assignment in the if() needs to be double-bracketed around
On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 12:34 AM, Amos Jeffries squ...@treenet.co.nz wrote:
On 03.07.2012 03:30, Francesco Chemolli wrote:
-if (conn_-getPeer())
-conn_-getPeer()-stats.conn_open++;
+if (peer *peer=(conn_-getPeer()))
+++peer-stats.conn_open;
