Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2005 12:33:33 +0100 From: Erik Trulsson <ertr1013@student.uu.se> To: Matthias Andree <matthias.andree@gmx.de> Cc: lioux@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD Port: qmail-1.03_3 Message-ID: <20050126113332.GA11731@falcon.midgard.homeip.net> In-Reply-To: <m3hdl4phni.fsf@merlin.emma.line.org> References: <41F6F431.6060005@tenebras.com> <1106704507.16118.14.camel@shumai.marcuscom.com> <41F72C02.7060901@camber-thrust.net> <20050126104355.GA3837@falcon.midgard.homeip.net> <m3hdl4phni.fsf@merlin.emma.line.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, Jan 26, 2005 at 12:13:37PM +0100, Matthias Andree wrote: > Erik Trulsson <ertr1013@student.uu.se> writes: > > > On Tue, Jan 25, 2005 at 09:34:58PM -0800, Michael Sierchio wrote: > >> ( 1 && 0 || 1 ) will ALWAYS evaluate to 1 on any ANSI C compiler. > > > > No, it will evaluate to 0. > > It will evaluate to 1, as you're correctly stating... Yes, right you are. Sorry about that. The interesting situation in this context seems to be ( 0 && 0 || 1) which evaluates to 1 versus ( 0 && (0 || 1) which evaluates to 0. Thereby demonstrating that the patch under discussion *does* change the semantics - and probably for the better as far as I can tell. -- <Insert your favourite quote here.> Erik Trulsson ertr1013@student.uu.se
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20050126113332.GA11731>