From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 13972 invoked by alias); 6 Jan 2015 09:18:37 -0000 Mailing-List: contact zsh-workers-help@zsh.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk X-No-Archive: yes List-Id: Zsh Workers List List-Post: List-Help: X-Seq: 34125 Received: (qmail 7899 invoked from network); 6 Jan 2015 09:18:25 -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=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=t5r7+5kS4xHnVWn+rGJ7ckTai9wZe/U3d0VJqVIdI+g=; b=ZLghCK/+ptOIfMZ3d+evOTgCIyrquWJFPDi8BBwKRnt38FnS3AcYt8MLMMIGcdZKWX h8PobhKFdrC8XWA1DBhjokQ+m4IaOOhvP3weJL5YrkUdDjVtj5WXPM2uN+D2mbl68GAF /50ixtoW4DlfiHIkXbufSOngeh6mSS2ybi1QF0lZLYJiNNX0ef+LRBROqmtqIWPVmNVD L8fl6NJu8WlNh0oFeqlGasjGaGsFbTwTDJ/naF3ueKbelInHXh83s4m3Z4ApgOUgzKiH jvSZfRcYNf+2+j01Ycbwz1PvoaQFWCDFi/Ju9RlVnKU4Row9hS7FsZxis77nbo84UthJ hdHA== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.42.38.9 with SMTP id a9mr38413308ice.68.1420535900867; Tue, 06 Jan 2015 01:18:20 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <150105235302.ZM10839@torch.brasslantern.com> References: <1420521949-30483-1-git-send-email-mikachu@gmail.com> <1420521949-30483-7-git-send-email-mikachu@gmail.com> <150105235302.ZM10839@torch.brasslantern.com> Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2015 10:18:20 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: PATCH 06/17: compctl: Remove pointless check From: Mikael Magnusson To: Bart Schaefer Cc: zsh workers Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 8:53 AM, 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. It's similar effort to just fix the code or to mark it as a false positive in coverity, and fixing it makes the code less confusing to look at as well, so I went with the patches. -- Mikael Magnusson