From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <zsh-workers-return-34141-mason-zsh=primenet.com.au@zsh.org>
Received: (qmail 24649 invoked by alias); 6 Jan 2015 16:20:15 -0000
Mailing-List: contact zsh-workers-help@zsh.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
X-No-Archive: yes
List-Id: Zsh Workers List <zsh-workers.zsh.org>
List-Post: <mailto:zsh-workers@zsh.org>
List-Help: <mailto:zsh-workers-help@zsh.org>
X-Seq: 34141
Received: (qmail 11648 invoked from network); 6 Jan 2015 16:20:12 -0000
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.2 (2011-06-06) on f.primenet.com.au
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW
	autolearn=ham version=3.3.2
X-Authority-Analysis: v=2.1 cv=T/C1EZ6Q c=1 sm=1 tr=0
 a=NYw9n4Tdrf7SEJJZV1QB5Q==:117 a=NYw9n4Tdrf7SEJJZV1QB5Q==:17 a=Hpgzp-inWqAA:10
 a=N659UExz7-8A:10 a=xw0qIOHE-O3f6y4Ev_cA:9 a=pILNOxqGKmIA:10
Message-id: <54AC0B2D.9060006@eastlink.ca>
Date: Tue, 06 Jan 2015 08:19:57 -0800
From: Ray Andrews <rayandrews@eastlink.ca>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Icedove/31.3.0
MIME-version: 1.0
To: zsh-workers@zsh.org
Subject: Re: PATCH 06/17: compctl: Remove pointless check
References: <1420521949-30483-1-git-send-email-mikachu@gmail.com>
 <1420521949-30483-7-git-send-email-mikachu@gmail.com>
 <150105235302.ZM10839@torch.brasslantern.com>
 <2802681.bPY3VCd1lN@kdudka.brq.redhat.com>
In-reply-to: <2802681.bPY3VCd1lN@kdudka.brq.redhat.com>
Content-type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit

On 01/06/2015 01:43 AM, Kamil Dudka wrote:
> On Monday 05 January 2015 23:53:02 Bart Schaefer wrote:
>> On Jan 6,  6:25am, Mikael Magnusson wrote:
>> } Subject: PATCH 06/17: compctl: Remove pointless check
>> }
>> } cc has already been derefed a bunch of times leading up to here. Found
>> } by Coverity (Issue 1255841).
>> } -    if (cc && cc->xor) {
>> } +    if (cc->xor) {
>>
>> I'm curious, why bother to "fix" this (and a couple of similar others in
>> later patches in this series)?  It's not *wrong*, and the change is not
>> a significant optimization.
> True, modern compilers would optimize out such checks anyway in some cases.
> Nevertheless, I believe that putting it explicit makes the code easier to
> understand for a human reader.
>
> Kamil
>
Myself, if I saw some code that appeared pointless, I would sit there 
staring at it until I educated myself as to why it was there, because I 
wouldn't expect that pointless code would ever be tolerated.