"Jaeger, Gerhard" wrote:
>
> Hi there,
>
> let's have a look at the warnings from the Plustek backend.
> The lines that produce the problem include the following statement:
>
> _SWAP(x,y) (x)^=(y)^=(x)^=(y)
>
> So what? Where's the problem here?
Aside from the problems mentioned by Tim a
> let's have a look at the warnings from the Plustek backend.
> The lines that produce the problem include the following statement:
> _SWAP(x,y)(x)^=(y)^=(x)^=(y)
> So what? Where's the problem here?
Hi there,
let's have a look at the warnings from the Plustek backend.
The lines that produce the problem include the following statement:
_SWAP(x,y) (x)^=(y)^=(x)^=(y)
So what? Where's the problem here?
If you take the following expamle, only _SWAP_1 produces the warning,
but does in fact
--lBe/Si07TENnq+bY
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Fri, Jan 25, 2002 at 12:27:03PM +0100, Jaeger, Gerhard wrote:
> Hi there,=20
>=20
> let's have a look at the warnings from the Plustek backend.
> The lines that
--WulRBKvtygI9tSt8
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Thu, Jan 24, 2002 at 08:17:25PM +0100, Karsten Festag wrote:
> I read somewhere that ++bit would give faster code than bit =3D bit + 1.
> Now my question (as a
Hi,
On Thu, Jan 24, 2002 at 08:12:53AM +0100, Karsten Festag wrote:
> I'll split
> bit = ++bit % 8;
> in the two lines
> bit = ++bit;
> bit %= 8;
>
> in microtek2.c
>
> Henning, could you do this for me in CVS?
I don't thin that this makes any difference.
++bit;
bit %= 8;
should work.
Tim Waugh wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 24, 2002 at 08:12:53AM +0100, Karsten Festag wrote:
>
> > in the two lines
> > bit = ++bit;
>
> This will give the same warning of course!
>
o.k, got it.
>
> > bit %= 8;
>
> Why not just use bit = (bit + 1) % 8, which appears to be the intent?
>
I read somewhere
--sdOeJE8sLwpQaOMV
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
On Thu, Jan 24, 2002 at 08:12:53AM +0100, Karsten Festag wrote:
> in the two lines
> bit = ++bit;
This will give the same warning of course!
> bit %= 8;
Why not just use bit = (bit + 1) % 8, which appea
Hi,
I'll split
bit = ++bit % 8;
in the two lines
bit = ++bit;
bit %= 8;
in microtek2.c
Henning, could you do this for me in CVS?
Thanks
Karsten
Tim Waugh schrieb:
> On Wed, Jan 23, 2002 at 09:43:35PM +0100, Henning
> Meier-Geinitz wrote:
>
> > This is with gcc-3.x? I don't get them with
--2mNuWrpDTYoom6W8
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Wed, Jan 23, 2002 at 09:43:35PM +0100, Henning Meier-Geinitz wrote:
> This is with gcc-3.x? I don't get them with gcc 2.95.4.
Yes.
> > They
> > are for things
Hi,
On Wed, Jan 23, 2002 at 09:55:55AM +, Tim Waugh wrote:
> I get these warnings when compiling sane-backends-1.0.7-beta1.
This is with gcc-3.x? I don't get them with gcc 2.95.4.
> They
> are for things like:
>
> bit = ++bit % 8;
>
> which are indeed undefined.
Because it's not cl
--YhFoJY/gx7awiIuK
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
I get these warnings when compiling sane-backends-1.0.7-beta1. They
are for things like:
bit = ++bit % 8;
which are indeed undefined.
Tim.
*/
microtek2.c:8054: warning: operation on `bit' may be
12 matches
Mail list logo
