gcc: fix implication order in assertion #217977
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
In 6812dd9 I mistakenly had the implication order reversed. This commit corrects that mistake. The original assertion (which is correct) was the following, which asserts that if you enable the GDB plugin, you must enable plugins generally (there is shared infrastructure): ``` assert enableGdbPlugin -> enablePlugin; ``` When the option name was changed to `disableGdbPlugin`, I incorrectly wrote: ``` assert disableGdbPlugin -> enablePlugin; ``` And then again incorrectly wrote: ``` assert disableGdbPlugin -> !enablePlugin; ``` This commit uses the correct equivalent for the first statement, which is the contrapositive: ``` assert !enablePlugin -> disableGdbPlugin; ```
This was referenced Feb 24, 2023
trofi
suggested changes
Feb 24, 2023
trofi
approved these changes
Feb 25, 2023
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Description of changes
In 6812dd9 I mistakenly had the implication order reversed. This commit corrects that mistake.
The original assertion (which is correct) was the following, which asserts that if you enable the GDB plugin, you must enable plugins generally (there is shared infrastructure):
When the option name was changed to
disableGdbPlugin, Iincorrectly wrote:
And then again incorrectly wrote:
This commit uses the correct equivalent for the first statement,
which is the contrapositive:
Things done
sandbox = trueset innix.conf? (See Nix manual)nix-shell -p nixpkgs-review --run "nixpkgs-review rev HEAD". Note: all changes have to be committed, also see nixpkgs-review usage./result/bin/)