On Wed, Jan 1, 2014 at 12:29 PM, Kewei Yu <kewe...@gmail.com> wrote: > > 2014/1/1 Peter Maydell <peter.mayd...@linaro.org> >> >> On 31 December 2013 13:29, Kewei Yu <kewe...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > 2013/12/31 Peter Crosthwaite <peter.crosthwa...@xilinx.com> >> >> >> >> On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 2:42 PM, Kewei Yu <kewe...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > "%s", qemu_binary, s->socket_path, >> >> > s->qmp_socket_path, pid_file, >> >> > + qtest_vnc_param ?: "", >> >> >> >> I do vaguely remember someone going to efforts to remove uses of "? : >> >> foo" (with the blank true value). >> > >> > I'm not clear the sentence's meaning. >> >> Using the ternary operator "X ? Y : Z" with an empty 2nd operand >> "X ?: Y" is not standard C. It's a GCC extension. There was a >> suggestion a year or so back that we should remove the uses of >> it, but the consensus was that this was unnecessary, since in >> practice we rely on other GCC extensions. Clang also supports >> this syntax, and it's the only other compiler we care about. >> > > Oh! Thank you, I got it. > >> In this case it seems reasonable, especially since the line >> immediately below this addition is using it too. > > > But,do I need to fix them to be "X ? Y : Z" and keep them consistent? >
No, it's already consistent. No change to patch required. Apart from the grammar and spelling. Regards, Peter > Faithfully yours > Kewei Yu > >> thanks >> -- PMM > > >
