On Thu, 19 Jun 2008, Mark Haywood wrote:
> Bill Holler wrote:
> > Line 325: the comma in the condition clause looks suspicious.
> > Should "i < obj->Package.Count, cnt > 0" instead be
> > "i < obj->Package.Count && cnt > 0" ?
>
> BTW. Can anybody think of any reason that lint shouldn't have caught my
> syntax mistake here? I can't think of any reason you'd ever want to use
> that syntax in the conditional clause?
Possibly because a comma is valid syntax in a for statement.
However, the test for termination would only occur on 'cnt > 0'.
---- Randy
>
> Mark
>
> >
> > Bill
> >
> >
> > Mark Haywood wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> An OpenSolaris user reported a problem with SpeedStep support on his
> >> laptop. His problem was that OpenSolaris was not finding the
> >> supported P-states. After a few email exchanges, we found that his
> >> _PSS table had a strangely defined set of P-states (see the attached
> >> stbl.dsl). There are 10 P-states returned by the _PSS, but the first
> >> 9 are duplicates. So, really there are only 2 uniquely defined
> >> P-states. The current P-state parsing code in Solaris doesn't allow
> >> for duplicates in the middle of the table (it does handle them at the
> >> end of the table since we've seen that case before). Though I
> >> consider this to be a questionable _PSS defintion, I think we can
> >> support it easy enough by ignoring consecutive duplicates altogether.
> >>
> >> I placed a webrev of the fix at:
> >>
> >> http://cr.opensolaris.org/~mhaywood/6716347/
> >>
> >> And I welcome any comments.
> >>
> >> Thanks!
> >> Mark
> >>
> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> tesla-dev mailing list
> >> tesla-dev at opensolaris.org
> >> http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/tesla-dev
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> tesla-dev mailing list
> tesla-dev at opensolaris.org
> http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/tesla-dev
>
