From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <segher@kernel.crashing.org>
Received: from gate.crashing.org (gate.crashing.org [63.228.1.57])
 by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F3D04388A000
 for <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>; Thu,  2 Apr 2020 12:05:05 +0000 (GMT)
DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 sourceware.org F3D04388A000
Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none)
 header.from=kernel.crashing.org
Authentication-Results: sourceware.org;
 spf=fail smtp.mailfrom=segher@kernel.crashing.org
Received: from gate.crashing.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
 by gate.crashing.org (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id 032C547n005826;
 Thu, 2 Apr 2020 07:05:04 -0500
Received: (from segher@localhost)
 by gate.crashing.org (8.14.1/8.14.1/Submit) id 032C54vt005825;
 Thu, 2 Apr 2020 07:05:04 -0500
X-Authentication-Warning: gate.crashing.org: segher set sender to
 segher@kernel.crashing.org using -f
Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2020 07:05:04 -0500
From: Segher Boessenkool <segher@kernel.crashing.org>
To: Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com>
Cc: "Kewen.Lin" <linkw@linux.ibm.com>, GCC Patches <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>, 
 Bill Schmidt <wschmidt@linux.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix PR94401 by considering reverse overrun
Message-ID: <20200402120504.GC26902@gate.crashing.org>
References: <f8d6e4fd-b668-b63f-a737-dec7610af14d@linux.ibm.com>
 <20200402082834.GO2212@tucnak>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20200402082834.GO2212@tucnak>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.3i
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-44.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, JMQ_SPF_NEUTRAL,
 KAM_DMARC_STATUS, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE, TXREP, T_SPF_HELO_PERMERROR,
 T_SPF_PERMERROR autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on
 server2.sourceware.org
X-BeenThere: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Gcc-patches mailing list <gcc-patches.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://gcc.gnu.org/mailman/options/gcc-patches>,
 <mailto:gcc-patches-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-patches-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://gcc.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gcc-patches>,
 <mailto:gcc-patches-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 02 Apr 2020 12:05:07 -0000

Hi!

On Thu, Apr 02, 2020 at 10:28:34AM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > +			tree offset = dataref_offset
> > +					? dataref_offset
> > +					: build_int_cst (ref_type, 0);
> 
> The above is misformatted.  The ? and : shouldn't be indented further than
> the dataref_offset, but usually e.g. for the sake of emacs we add ()s around
> the expression in this case.  So:
> 			tree offset = (dataref_offset
> 				       ? dataref_offset
> 				       : build_int_cst (ref_type, 0));
> or
> 			tree offset
> 			  = (dataref_offset
> 			     ? dataref_offset : build_int_cst (ref_type, 0));

Or even just the (less obfuscated imnsho)

			tree offset = dataref_offset;
			if (!offset)
			  offset = build_int_cst (ref_type, 0);

which even is shorter!


Segher