From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 3486 invoked by alias); 30 Jul 2010 15:55:12 -0000 Received: (qmail 3471 invoked by uid 22791); 30 Jul 2010 15:55:11 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from rock.gnat.com (HELO rock.gnat.com) (205.232.38.15) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Fri, 30 Jul 2010 15:55:06 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E0B912BAC24; Fri, 30 Jul 2010 11:55:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: from rock.gnat.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (rock.gnat.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id W5hEteYpX3uO; Fri, 30 Jul 2010 11:55:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E7502BAC19; Fri, 30 Jul 2010 11:55:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 0EC035BE20; Fri, 30 Jul 2010 08:54:56 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2010 15:55:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Jan Kratochvil Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [patch] Fix regression on prelinked executables Message-ID: <20100730155456.GH13267@adacore.com> References: <20100715095457.GA22922@host0.dyn.jankratochvil.net> <20100729163648.GA13267@adacore.com> <20100730154442.GA25162@host1.dyn.jankratochvil.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20100730154442.GA25162@host1.dyn.jankratochvil.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2010-07/txt/msg00580.txt.bz2 > The meaning is reversed. It is !(a || b || c). Which I find more readable > than (!a && !b && !c). But I will have to change my mind as it seems to not > everyone may consider my chosen format as more readable. I just decided to read the condition as "suppress the warning if (a || b)". That helped mentally absorb it. But I think that's a detail. > That is the change above reducing the enumerated list in fact > increases the probability we give a warning. OK - just wanted to make sure that this was the intent. > OK to check-in? Sure. -- Joel