Angus Leeming wrote:
>> Alternatively, you could as well specify that if you set
>> child_redirect_stderr you need *not* to set child_stdout nor
>> child_stderr, and have child_stdout=100, child_stderr=010,
>> child_redirect=101
>
> But if (mode = child_stdout), then (mode & child_redirect) == tr
Alfredo Braunstein wrote:
> Angus Leeming wrote:
>
>> This works well enough, but I was wondering if, by choosing a
>> different value for child_redirect_stderr, I could avoid the run time
>> check:
>> if (mode & child_redirect_stderr) {
>> mode |= child_stdout;
>> if (mode & child_stderr) mode ^
Angus Leeming wrote:
> This works well enough, but I was wondering if, by choosing a
> different value for child_redirect_stderr, I could avoid the run time
> check:
> if (mode & child_redirect_stderr) {
> mode |= child_stdout;
> if (mode & child_stderr) mode ^= child_stderr;
> }
Alternatively, y
On Friday 18 June 2004 10:49 am, Helge Hafting wrote:
> Angus Leeming wrote:
> >Can I choose a value for "d" such that I don't need to modify
> > "val" in foo, below? I've tried and failed and so have resorted
> > to this runtime modification.
> >
> >int const a = 1;
> >int const b = 2;
> >
Angus Leeming <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Can I choose a value for "d" such that I don't need to modify "val" in
| foo, below? I've tried and failed and so have resorted to this runtime
| modification.
>
| int const a = 1;
| int const b = 2;
| int const c = 4;
| int const d = 8;
Can I choose a value for "d" such that I don't need to modify "val" in
foo, below? I've tried and failed and so have resorted to this runtime
modification.
int const a = 1;
int const b = 2;
int const c = 4;
int const d = 8;
void foo(int val)
{
// (val & d) implies (val & b) an
