22 Jan
2019
22 Jan
'19
7:57 p.m.
On Wed, Jan 09, 2019 at 03:39:54PM -0600, Pierre-Louis Bossart wrote:
On 1/9/19 2:44 PM, Mark Brown wrote:
On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 03:23:11PM -0600, Pierre-Louis Bossart wrote:
- /* make sure count is <= avail */
- count = avail > count ? count : avail;
min()?
I tried to use min() but then Sparse started complaining so went back to an explicit test+assign.
I don't have a strong opinion on this, but we've found so many improvements with the tools that I tend to favor warning-free code.
Why was sparse complaining - was it spotting something that is an actual issue here and you've just masked the warning?