This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: [PATCH] Assertify l*.c

From: Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr at integrable-solutions dot net>
To: Nathan Sidwell <nathan at codesourcery dot com>
Cc: Richard Guenther <richard dot guenther at gmail dot com>, GCC Patches <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>
Date: 01 Apr 2005 18:59:36 +0200
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Assertify l*.c
Organization: Integrable Solutions
References: <424D5793.2090900@codesourcery.com><84fc9c00050401063566678e19@mail.gmail.com><424D5EEF.6000503@codesourcery.com>

Nathan Sidwell <nathan@codesourcery.com> writes:

|  > I'd suggest
| > at least spelling the assert like
| >      gcc_assert (inc != 0);
| 
| Y'know, I really don't understand this POV.  The C language specifies that
| expressions in boolean context are implicitly compared against zero.  Adding

yes but thaty does not imply that we should not make things clearer on
occasion.   The C standard allows lots of things, some f them are
questionabble. 

| in the '!= 0' part invites an infinite series of '!= 0' as Hofstadter writes
| in 'Goedel, Escher, Bach'.

I strongly disagree.

-- Gaby

References:
- [PATCH] Assertify l*.c
  - From: Nathan Sidwell
- Re: [PATCH] Assertify l*.c
  - From: Richard Guenther
- Re: [PATCH] Assertify l*.c
  - From: Nathan Sidwell

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]