Hi James and Gunter,
On Sat, Jun 17, 2017 at 12:08:21PM +0100, James Cowgill wrote:
> > ++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 unde
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 me
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...
>
>
3 matches
Mail list logo
