On Wednesday, March 5, 2008 at 11:27:02 -0500, Aron Griffis wrote:
>| subscribe mutt-dev@
> will it cause a false positive in any common case?
A quick search on 16668 mails here found 424 false positives.
Example the message at origin of this thread is sent by Brian Medley
. It's not uncommo
On 2008-03-06 10:08:34 +, Nicolas Bernard wrote:
> You are missing my point. They EVALUATE to pointers, but they are
> not pointers.
No, the point is that the test is performed on the pointer itself.
If you think that the test array == NULL is wrong, then for the same
reason, writing f(array)
On 2008-03-06 08:54:03 -0500, Derek Martin wrote:
> My earlier comments aside, I agree that the patch should be applied.
> I don't think it makes sense to write code that compiles with
> warnings,
Yes, but they are other ways to avoid warnings. As I've said, the
real bug is in gcc. Fortunately, gc
On Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 08:54:46AM +0100, Fabian Groffen wrote:
No,
I don't think that currently works; I'll work on it.
Thanks for the idea!!
> On 28-02-2008 23:35:03 -0600, Brian Medley wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I have created a patch that starts a new message to the sender of
> > the currently
Vincent Lefevre([EMAIL PROTECTED])@2008.03.07 15:28:08 +0100 wrote:
> On 2008-03-06 10:08:34 +, Nicolas Bernard wrote:
> > You are missing my point. They EVALUATE to pointers, but they are
> > not pointers.
>
> No, the point is that the test is performed on the pointer itself.
> If you think t
On Fri, Mar 07, 2008 at 03:59:30PM +0100, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> -# define NONULL(x) x?x:""
> +# define NONULL(x) ((x) != (void *) 0) ? (x) : ""
Both those definitions are absolutely horrid:
Consider:
*NONULL(foo)
1 + NONULL(foo) + 1
NONULL(a == b ? c : d)
I did once have to fight a
On Fri, Mar 07, 2008 at 03:28:08PM +0100, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> On 2008-03-06 10:08:34 +, Nicolas Bernard wrote:
> > You are missing my point. They EVALUATE to pointers, but they are
> > not pointers.
>
> No, the point is that the test is performed on the pointer itself.
> If you think that
On Thu, Mar 06, 2008 at 12:22:11PM +0100, Rado S wrote:
> Moin,
>
> situation:
> - mail-list is run with domain "lists.dom.org".
> - List-Post: header carries this.
> - it is accessible via "lists.alias.com", too.
> - mail is sent to 'alias'.
> - no MFT set in header.
> - mutt has "subscribe @list
On 2008-03-07 18:05:17 +, David Laight wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 07, 2008 at 03:59:30PM +0100, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> > -# define NONULL(x) x?x:""
> > +# define NONULL(x) ((x) != (void *) 0) ? (x) : ""
Oops, I added the closing parenthesis at the wrong place. It should
of course be:
#define NO
On 2008-03-07 16:23:09 +0100, Nicolas Bernard wrote:
> No, you are still missing my point. Think of how the compiler see the
> code:
> when you write "array" as in
> if (array)
> the compiler just replace "array" by the address of the [beginning of] the
> array. Now, when you write "pointer" as in
On 2008-03-07 16:01:27 -0500, Derek Martin wrote:
> It should be clear that an array is NOT simply a pointer.
I've never said that they are the same thing. The fact is under some
conditions, arrays are converted into pointers, and Mutt's code is
correct. It does something useless, but the goal of
> [long argument on arrays and pointers deleted]
Fine Vincent. Do as you wish, I drop it.
N.
12 matches
Mail list logo
