linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] Documentation: Explain a second alternative for multi-line macros.

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce john-users owl-users popa3d-users / xvendor oss-security / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Order Openwall GNU/*/Linux 2.0 on a CD with delivery worldwide

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Sun, 31 Dec 2006 19:23:28 -0800
From:	Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@...cle.com>
To:	Segher Boessenkool <segher@...nel.crashing.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Documentation: Explain a second alternative for multi-line
 macros.

Segher Boessenkool wrote:
>>> In this case, the second form
>>> should be used when the macro needs to return a value (and you can't
>>> use an inline function for whatever reason), whereas the first form
>>> should be used at all other times.
>>
>> that's a fair point, although it's certainly not the coding style
>> that's in play now.  for example,
>>
>>   #define setcc(cc) ({ \
>>     partial_status &= ~(SW_C0|SW_C1|SW_C2|SW_C3); \
>>     partial_status |= (cc) & (SW_C0|SW_C1|SW_C2|SW_C3); })
> 
> This _does_ return a value though, bad example.

Where does it return a value?  I don't see any uses of it
in arch/i386/math-emu/* that use it as returning a value.

And with a small change to put it inside a do-while block
instead of ({ ... }), it at least builds cleanly.
I expected some complaints.

-- 
~Randy
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/