Hi, On 17/06/17 12:03, Gunter Königsmann wrote: > Even if these code lines would work they probably should be reformulated > by upstream so they are easier to read: > > ++i assigns I the value I+1 and returns the new i. And then i is > assigned another new value by the i= in the same line... > > ...a better way to express what I believe the line should mean would be: > > ++i; > i &= 3; > > Perhaps the c compiler is as unsure which assignment should have the > precedence as I am.
Or "i = (i + 1) & 0x3" which I think looks better. The original code invokes undefined behavior so is wrong anyway. I have no idea why this only affects jessie-backports though. James
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
