| 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
| ||
|
Date: Wed, 20 May 2009 09:38:47 +0200 From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> To: Roland McGrath <roland@...hat.com> Cc: Jason Baron <jbaron@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, fweisbec@...il.com, mingo@...e.hu, laijs@...fujitsu.com, rostedt@...dmis.org, mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca, jiayingz@...gle.com, mbligh@...gle.com, fche@...hat.com Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] tracepoints: delay argument evaluation On Wed, 2009-05-20 at 00:27 -0700, Roland McGrath wrote: > > Why can't > > > > trace_block_bio_complete(arg..) > > if (__trace_block_bio_compete.state) > > __trace_block_bio_complete(arg) > > > > work? > > > > Surely its possible to wrap the whole stuff in yet another macro layer > > that will do the conditional before evaluating the arguments? > > That is exactly what Jason has implemented. > He called the new macro layer tracepoint_call. > > You can't use a macro to generate a new macro definition, so it's not > possible with cpp alone to have the new macro layer be one that defines a > separate trace_foobar() macro for each defined tracepoint. Right, just realized that. But I think we should be asking GCC to get fixed. Since inline functions don't act like a compiler barrier anyway, they might as well not force argument evaluation either. -- 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