Re: [PATCH] coverity: CID35: fixed wrong condition

[Felix Nawothnig]

Marcus Meissner wrote:
> -  if(nRelPos>=0) { /* if this or preceding row */
> +  if(nRelPos<=0) { /* if this or preceding row */
>      while(nRelPos<=0) {

Shouldn't that become a "do { ... } while()" then?

[PATCH] coverity: CID35: fixed wrong condition

[Marcus Meissner]

On Mon, Feb 05, 2007 at 10:29:23PM +0100, Felix Nawothnig wrote:
> Marcus Meissner wrote:
> > -  if(nRelPos>=0) { /* if this or preceding row */
> > +  if(nRelPos<=0) { /* if this or preceding row */
> >     while(nRelPos<=0) {
>
> Shouldn't that become a "do { ... } while()" then?

No, since there is a return item; after the while ()  loop.

Actually we might want to kill the whole function, it seems not to
be used.

I am just not comfortable with removing it. 

Ciao, Marcus

[PATCH] coverity: CID35: fixed wrong condition

[Felix Nawothnig]

Marcus Meissner wrote:
> > > -  if(nRelPos>=0) { /* if this or preceding row */
> > > +  if(nRelPos<=0) { /* if this or preceding row */
> > >    while(nRelPos<=0) {
> > > Shouldn't that become a "do { ... } while()" then?
> > > No, since there is a return item; after the while ()  loop.

I meant replacing just the while(), not the if() while().

It's mostly a matter of style though as gcc most likely will compile it 
to a do {} while() anyway.

Felix

[PATCH] coverity: CID35: fixed wrong condition

[Marcus Meissner]

On Tue, Feb 06, 2007 at 07:20:40PM +0100, Felix Nawothnig wrote:
> Marcus Meissner wrote:
> > > > -  if(nRelPos>=0) { /* if this or preceding row */
> > > > +  if(nRelPos<=0) { /* if this or preceding row */
> > > >   while(nRelPos<=0) {
> > > > Shouldn't that become a "do { ... } while()" then?
> > > > No, since there is a return item; after the while ()  loop.
>
> I meant replacing just the while(), not the if() while().
>
> It's mostly a matter of style though as gcc most likely will compile it 
> to a do {} while() anyway.

I only wanted to do the minimalistic change to avoid
errors creeping in ;)

Ciao, Marcus