linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] Centralize the macro definition of "_

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Date:	Thu, 18 Jan 2007 18:07:35 +0100 (CET)
From:	Tim Schmielau <tim@...sik3.uni-rostock.de>
To:	"Robert P. J. Day" <rpjday@...dspring.com>
cc:	Linux kernel mailing list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Roman Zippel <zippel@...ux-m68k.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH]  Centralize the macro definition of "__packed".

On Thu, 18 Jan 2007, Robert P. J. Day wrote:

> actually, it *appears* that the standard works this way.  the macro
> "__deprecated" is defined in compiler-gcc.h with:
> 
>     #define __deprecated __attribute__((deprecated))
> 
> while the more generic compiler.h handles whether or not it was
> defined:
> 
>     #ifndef __deprecated
>     # define __deprecated           /* unimplemented */
>     #endif
> 
> so i'm guessing that's how any new attribute shortcut macros should be
> handled, yes?

Well, since the definitions lived well in compiler-generic land for quite 
some time, I'd guess it should be ok not to #ifndef - guard them. 
likely() and unlikely() are currently handled like that.
If the need ever arises to make them compiler specific, whoever does that 
can still add the #ifndef then.

Tim
-
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/