Re: [PATCH 1/5] proc: Make the generation of the self symlink table driven.

[Eric W. Biederman]

Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

>>Regardless this isn't a case where the C precedence is wrong.
>>"a < b | 1" is an example of C getting the precedence wrong.
>
> Blame the creator of C.
> But maybe this was intended, since | is a logical operation, as is <, 
> while + is an arithmetic one. Programmatically probably not making much 
> sense, bitfield |= a < b is one use case.

I do.  As I recall the history | and & predate the introduction
of || and && and originally served both functions, so the got
the lower precedence.

>>Having to remember where C is wrong and in what circumstances is
>>harder than just putting in parenthesis.
>
> The GNU C compiler will warn you where such may happen, but
> currently does so - too bad - only with && and ||.
>  c.c:2: warning: suggest parentheses around && within ||

You see my point :)  I have better things to worry about
when writing and reviewing code than remember what the
precedence rules are.

Anyway I have figured out how to remove the need for the - 1,
and the trailing empty entries in proc, patch to follow shortly.

Eric




-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/