On Tue, Jul 19, 2016 at 10:49 AM, Andrew Cooper
<andrew.coop...@citrix.com> wrote:
> On 19/07/16 17:27, Tamas K Lengyel wrote:
>>
>>>> +{
>>>> + int rc = 0;
>>>> + shr_handle_t sh, ch;
>>>> + unsigned long start =
>>>> + range->_scratchspace ? range->_scratchspace : range->start;
>>> This can be shortened to "unsigned long start = range->_scratchspace ?:
>>> range->start;" and fit on a single line.
>> I'm not that familiar with this style of the syntax, does that have
>> the effect of setting start = _scratchspace when _scratchspace is not
>> 0?
>
> It is a GCC extension
> https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc-6.1.0/gcc/Conditionals.html which
> allows you to omit the middle parameter if it is identical to the first.
Are we OK with using syntax that is based on a compiler extension? I
recall some cases where that was frowned upon (like using the 0b
prefix).
Tamas
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
