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

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:	Mon, 1 Jan 2007 03:40:19 +0100
From:	Segher Boessenkool <segher@...nel.crashing.org>
To:	"Robert P. J. Day" <rpjday@...dspring.com>
Cc:	Muli Ben-Yehuda <muli@...ibm.com>,
	Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@...cle.com>,
	Linux kernel mailing list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	trivial@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Documentation: Explain a second alternative for multi-line macros.

>> 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.


Segher

-
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/