On Sun, Nov 4, 2012 at 11:16 AM, Julia Lawall wrote:
> I didn't change any cases where the if test contains a function call. The
> current definitions of WARN_ON seem to always evaluate the condition
> expression, but I was worried that that might not always be the case. And
> calling a function
On Sun, 4 Nov 2012, Sasha Levin wrote:
On Sun, Nov 4, 2012 at 10:57 AM, Julia Lawall wrote:
On Sun, 4 Nov 2012, Sasha Levin wrote:
Hi Julia,
On Sat, Nov 3, 2012 at 4:30 PM, Julia Lawall wrote:
These patches convert a conditional with a simple test expression and a
then branch that only c
On Sun, Nov 4, 2012 at 10:57 AM, Julia Lawall wrote:
> On Sun, 4 Nov 2012, Sasha Levin wrote:
>
>> Hi Julia,
>>
>> On Sat, Nov 3, 2012 at 4:30 PM, Julia Lawall wrote:
>>>
>>> These patches convert a conditional with a simple test expression and a
>>> then branch that only calls WARN_ON(1) to just
On Sun, 4 Nov 2012, Sasha Levin wrote:
Hi Julia,
On Sat, Nov 3, 2012 at 4:30 PM, Julia Lawall wrote:
These patches convert a conditional with a simple test expression and a
then branch that only calls WARN_ON(1) to just a call to WARN_ON, which
will test the condition.
//
@@
expression e;
@
Hi Julia,
On Sat, Nov 3, 2012 at 4:30 PM, Julia Lawall wrote:
> These patches convert a conditional with a simple test expression and a
> then branch that only calls WARN_ON(1) to just a call to WARN_ON, which
> will test the condition.
>
> //
> @@
> expression e;
> @@
>
> (
> if(<+...e(...)...+
These patches convert a conditional with a simple test expression and a
then branch that only calls WARN_ON(1) to just a call to WARN_ON, which
will test the condition.
//
@@
expression e;
@@
(
if(<+...e(...)...+>) WARN_ON(1);
|
- if (e) WARN_ON(1);
+ WARN_ON(e);
)//
--
To unsubscribe from thi
6 matches
Mail list logo