From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 27430 invoked by alias); 3 Jul 2007 01:21:04 -0000 Received: (qmail 27405 invoked by uid 22791); 3 Jul 2007 01:21:04 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from a.mail.sonic.net (HELO a.mail.sonic.net) (64.142.16.245) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Tue, 03 Jul 2007 01:21:02 +0000 Received: from webmail.sonic.net (b.webmail.sonic.net [64.142.100.148]) by a.mail.sonic.net (8.13.8.Beta0-Sonic/8.13.7) with ESMTP id l631KwKN026907; Mon, 2 Jul 2007 18:20:58 -0700 Received: from 12.7.175.2 (SquirrelMail authenticated user msnyder) by webmail.sonic.net with HTTP; Mon, 2 Jul 2007 18:20:58 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <8387.12.7.175.2.1183425658.squirrel@webmail.sonic.net> In-Reply-To: <20070703011147.GA26350@caradoc.them.org> References: <16087.12.7.175.2.1183076995.squirrel@webmail.sonic.net> <20070701154831.GE10872@caradoc.them.org> <004a01c7bbf8$16a2ccc0$677ba8c0@sonic.net> <20070701160224.GH10872@caradoc.them.org> <9624.12.7.175.2.1183421112.squirrel@webmail.sonic.net> <20070703011147.GA26350@caradoc.them.org> Date: Tue, 03 Jul 2007 01:21:00 -0000 Subject: Re: [RFC] logic change in m2-valprint.c From: msnyder@sonic.net To: msnyder@sonic.net, gdb-patches@sourceware.org, gaius@glam.ac.uk User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.9a MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2007-07/txt/msg00048.txt.bz2 > On Mon, Jul 02, 2007 at 05:05:12PM -0700, Michael Snyder wrote: >> is nowhere else for it to be set false), and there is no second >> time -- we will never enter this block again because we will set >> "element_seen" to true (and there is nowhere else for it to be >> set false again). >> >> Was that clear? > > Clear, but not right. > > 152 element_seen = 0; > > On entry, empty_set = 1 and element_seen = 0. We see an element, > which causes us set empty_set = 0 and element_seen = 1. Then we see a > clear bit in the set and set element_seen to 0 and not change > empty_set. Then we see a set bit, and element_seen == 0 with > empty_set == 0. We print the comma. > > I would test it, but I don't have an M-2 compiler and the expression > parser can't create sets. Am I missing something? You've convinced me -- I don't understand this one. I'm going to kick it back to Coverity -- consider this one withdrawn.