From: jdow <jdow@earthlink.net>
Date: Sun, 08 May 2005 11:33:32 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Really *do* nothing in while loop
Message-ID: <12e801c553c1$c454ea20$1225a8c0@kittycat>
In-Reply-To: <1115551204.3085.0.camel@kryten>

From: "James Purser" <purserj@ksit.dynalias.com>

> On Sun, 2005-05-08 at 19:48, Michael Tokarev wrote:
> > Thomas Glanzmann wrote:
> > > [PATCH] Really *do* nothing in while loop
> > > 
> > > Signed-Off-by: Thomas Glanzmann <sithglan@stud.uni-erlangen.de>
> > > 
> > > --- a/sha1_file.c
> > > +++ b/sha1_file.c
> > > @@ -335,7 +335,7 @@
> > >  stream.next_in = hdr;
> > >  stream.avail_in = hdrlen;
> > >  while (deflate(&stream, 0) == Z_OK)
> > > - /* nothing */
> > > + /* nothing */;
> > >  
> > >  /* Then the data itself.. */
> > >  stream.next_in = buf;
> > 
> > Well, the lack of semicolon is wrong really (and funny).

You guys REALLY do not see the changed semantics here? You are
changing:
  while (deflate(&stream, 0) == Z_OK)
      stream.next_in = buf;

into

  while (deflate(&stream, 0) == Z_OK)
    ;
  /* Then the data itself.. */
  stream.next_in = buf;

I suspect the results of that tiny bit of code would be slightly
different, especially if "stream.next_in" is volatile, "buf"
is volatile, or if the assignment to next_in has an effect on
the "deflate" operation.

{^_^}