On Tue, 4 Apr 2023 at 20:26, BALATON Zoltan <bala...@eik.bme.hu> wrote: > On Tue, 4 Apr 2023, Peter Maydell wrote: > > Should the iteration expression just be deleted, or should the > > statement in the loop be updating i rather than just setting it? > > In a previous version I've tried to update i from the loop but that did > not work too well so I've reverted to setting i at every iteration which > is also how this is done elsewhere already. So the increment in the for > line can be dropped, I've just forgot that there apparently. Should I send > a patch or you can do it?
If you could send a patch that would be helpful -- I don't have a setup handy to test this beyond "did it compile". This isn't an urgent thing to fix. -- PMM
