[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2006 20:30:42 -0800
From: Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@...cle.com>
To: Segher Boessenkool <segher@...nel.crashing.org>
CC: Muli Ben-Yehuda <muli@...ibm.com>,
Linux kernel mailing list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"Robert P. J. Day" <rpjday@...dspring.com>, trivial@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Documentation: Explain a second alternative for multi-line
macros.
Segher Boessenkool wrote:
>>>> #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?
>
> partial_status |=
as I expected (or suspected).
I also suspect that it wasn't intended, but this is old code
and I wasn't around Linux when it was written, so I don't know
about it for sure.
>> I don't see any uses of it
>
> Ah, that's a separate thing -- it returns a value, it's just
> never used.
Ack.
>> And with a small change to put it inside a do-while block
>> instead of ({ ... }), it at least builds cleanly.
>
> Well please replace it then, statement expressions should be
> avoided where possible (to start with, they don't have well-
> defined semantics).
We should probably avoid gcc extensions when possible.
I'll send a separate email for the patch.
--
~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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists