On 11.01.2017 18:12, Eric Blake wrote: > On 01/11/2017 10:41 AM, dcb wrote: >> so I think the compiler warning is for the i * 2 lhs of the ?. > > Yes - the compiler is complaining that 'i * 2' can only be non-zero if > 'i' was non-zero (given that the code occurs in a loop for i between 0 > and 16), so it is just as easy to write 'i ? ...' instead of the weirder > '(i * 2) ? ...'.
... unless something like (i & 2) was meant instead? Maybe Jose (who wrote that code) could comment on this? Thomas
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
