On 12 June 2015 at 11:38, dcb <email address hidden> wrote:
> Public bug reported:
>
>
> 1.
>
> [qemu/hw/block/nvme.c:355]: (style) Redundant condition: sqid. 'A && (!A
> || B)' is equivalent to 'A || B'
>
> if (!sqid || (sqid && !nvme_check_sqid(n, sqid))) {
>
> 2.
>
> [qemu/hw/block/nvme.c:429]: (style) Redundant condition: cqid. 'A && (!A
> || B)' is equivalent to 'A || B'
>
> if (!cqid || (cqid && !nvme_check_cqid(n, cqid))) {
>
> 3.
>
> [qemu/hw/tpm/tpm_passthrough.c:157]: (style) Redundant condition:
> tpm_pt.tpm_op_canceled. 'A && (!A || B)' is equivalent to 'A || B'
>
> if (!tpm_pt->tpm_op_canceled ||
> (tpm_pt->tpm_op_canceled && errno != ECANCELED)) {
These three are all straightforward and would look simpler
in their simplified versions...
> 4.
>
> [qemu/target-arm/translate-a64.c:5729]: (style) Redundant condition:
> size<3. 'A && (!A || B)' is equivalent to 'A || B'
>
> if (size > 3
> || (size < 3 && is_q)
> || (size == 3 && !is_q)) {
...but I'm less sure about this one. I'm not even sure
what it's trying to suggest this should simplify to:
just dropping "size < 3" is obviously wrong, and the
condition format isn't "A && (!A || B)" either.
On 12 June 2015 at 11:38, dcb <email address hidden> wrote: block/nvme. c:355]: (style) Redundant condition: sqid. 'A && (!A block/nvme. c:429]: (style) Redundant condition: cqid. 'A && (!A tpm/tpm_ passthrough. c:157]: (style) Redundant condition: tpm_op_ canceled. 'A && (!A || B)' is equivalent to 'A || B' >tpm_op_ canceled || >tpm_op_ canceled && errno != ECANCELED)) {
> Public bug reported:
>
>
> 1.
>
> [qemu/hw/
> || B)' is equivalent to 'A || B'
>
> if (!sqid || (sqid && !nvme_check_sqid(n, sqid))) {
>
> 2.
>
> [qemu/hw/
> || B)' is equivalent to 'A || B'
>
> if (!cqid || (cqid && !nvme_check_cqid(n, cqid))) {
>
> 3.
>
> [qemu/hw/
> tpm_pt.
>
> if (!tpm_pt-
> (tpm_pt-
These three are all straightforward and would look simpler
in their simplified versions...
> 4. arm/translate- a64.c:5729] : (style) Redundant condition:
>
> [qemu/target-
> size<3. 'A && (!A || B)' is equivalent to 'A || B'
>
> if (size > 3
> || (size < 3 && is_q)
> || (size == 3 && !is_q)) {
...but I'm less sure about this one. I'm not even sure
what it's trying to suggest this should simplify to:
just dropping "size < 3" is obviously wrong, and the
condition format isn't "A && (!A || B)" either.
thanks
-- PMM