[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2006 19:23:28 -0800
From: Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@...cle.com>
To: Segher Boessenkool <segher@...nel.crashing.org>
CC: "Robert P. J. Day" <rpjday@...dspring.com>,
Muli Ben-Yehuda <muli@...ibm.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.
Segher Boessenkool wrote:
>>> 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.
Where does it return a value? I don't see any uses of it
in arch/i386/math-emu/* that use it as returning a value.
And with a small change to put it inside a do-while block
instead of ({ ... }), it at least builds cleanly.
I expected some complaints.
--
~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