Geeqie... I'll take it -- but I'd like co-maintainers! [was Re: Orphaned Geeqie]

[Jonathan Wakely]

On 21/07/15 14:28 +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>On 21/07/15 09:10 -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:
>>On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 11:07:56AM +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>>>For example this can't be right:
>>>       if (rgb1[0] == rgb1[1] == rgb1[2]) {
>>
>>Ouch. *Digs back in memory* -- so if rgb1[0] and rgb1[1] are equal and
>>rgb1[2] is 1, or if rgb1[0] and rgb1[1] are *not* equal and rgb[2] is
>>0, this will be true, and in all other cases false. Perfectly valid
>>code!
>
>Full marks! :-)
>
>If that's really what the author intended then it's far too
>clever/subtle to go without a comment, but I suspect it's just a bug.

GCC has warned about this since at least 4.3.6 (which is ooooold):

eq.c:3: warning: suggest parentheses around comparison in operand of ==