Hello, Alex is right, but the new code example doesn't do exactly like the old one ... On 04/05/16 06:19, Alex Balashov wrote: Indeed the condition does what is expected -- just to clarify better for those that want to understand more, it can be also written like: if( (ptr) && ( !VALID_CONTACT(ptr,act_time) || !(ret=-2) || !allowed_method(_m,ptr))) It is also important to know that in C the evaluation of an expression stops when its final result cannot change anymore. The evaluation is: - if not a valid contact then the ret=-2 and allow_method() are not executed anymore, because the condition is already true. The ret was initialized to -1, so the function returns -1 - if valid contact, ret=-2 is always executed, but now with ! (negation) is always false, so allow_method() is also executed and goto done happens if the method is not accepted by the target, in this case function returns -2 - if the method is allowed, then the ret is -2, but few lines later is set to 1. An alternative of the IF block will be: if(!(VALID_CONTACT(ptr,act_time)) goto done; if(!allowed_method(_m,ptr))) { ret = -2; goto done; } Anyhow, looking at the code I spotted a minor issue -- ptr should not be checked anymore, because the line before the IF is accessing it. So if it is NULL, then it will crash at the line before. However, the function setting the ptr was successful, so ptr should not be null there - the all code: res = ul.get_urecord_by_ruid(_d, ahash, &inst, &r, &ptr); if(res<0) { LM_DBG("temp gruu '%.*s' not found in usrloc\n", aor.len, ZSW(aor.s)); return -1; } aor = *ptr->aor; /* test if un-expired and suported contact */ if( (ptr) && !(VALID_CONTACT(ptr,act_time) && (ret=-2) && allowed_method(_m,ptr))) This is the part for temporary gruu lookup, my guess it's not much used out there. I will refactor to handle better the ptr and show more clear the conditions. Cheers, Daniel -- Daniel-Constantin Mierla http://www.asipto.com http://twitter.com/#!/miconda - http://www.linkedin.com/in/miconda Kamailio World Conference, Berlin, May 18-20, 2016 - http://www.kamailioworld.com

On 04/05/16 08:18, Alex Balashov wrote: :-) -- knowing that I tend to use clear statements, looking at the patch the expression was more or less inherited from previous version, respectively the patch removes: - while ( (ptr) && - !(VALID_CONTACT(ptr,act_time) && (ret=-2) && allowed_method(_m,ptr))) - ptr = ptr->next; - if (ptr==0) { Cheers, Daniel -- Daniel-Constantin Mierla http://www.asipto.com http://twitter.com/#!/miconda - http://www.linkedin.com/in/miconda Kamailio World Conference, Berlin, May 18-20, 2016 - http://www.kamailioworld.com