[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Mon, 01 Jan 2007 08:14:21 -0800
From: Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@...cle.com>
To: "Robert P. J. Day" <rpjday@...dspring.com>
CC: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Linux kernel mailing list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
trivial@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Documentation: Explain a second alternative for multi-line
macros.
Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> On Mon, 1 Jan 2007, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Dec 31, 2006 at 02:32:25PM -0500, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
>>> + (a) Enclose those statements in a do - while block:
>>> +
>>> + #define macrofun(a, b, c) \
>>> + do { \
>>> + if (a == 5) \
>>> + do_this(b, c); \
>>> + } while (0)
>> nitpick, please don't add an indentaion level for the do {. Do this
>> should look like:
>>
>> #define macrofun(a, b, c) \
>> do { \
>> if (a == 5) \
>> do_this(b, c); \
>> } while (0)
>
> the former is the way it's presented in CodingStyle currently, it
> wasn't my personal opinion on the subject. i was just reproducing
> what was already there.
>
>>> + (b) Use the gcc extension that a compound statement enclosed in
>>> + parentheses represents an expression:
>>> +
>>> + #define macrofun(a, b, c) ({ \
>>> if (a == 5) \
>>> do_this(b, c); \
>>> - } while (0)
>>> + })
>> I'd rather document to not use this - it makes the code far less
>> redable. And it's a non-standard extension, something we only
>> use if it provides us a benefit which it doesn't here.
>
> it might be a bit late to put a cork in *that* bottle:
>
> $ grep -r "#define.*({" *
We aren't trying to prevent its past use. We just aren't encouraging
the use of gcc extensions if there are reasonable & better ways to
do something.
--
~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