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 18:51:05 +0100
From:	Segher Boessenkool <segher@...nel.crashing.org>
To:	Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@...ux01.gwdg.de>
Cc:	"Robert P. J. Day" <rpjday@...dspring.com>, trivial@...nel.org,
	Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@...cle.com>,
	Muli Ben-Yehuda <muli@...ibm.com>,
	Linux kernel mailing list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Documentation: Explain a second alternative for multi-line macros.

> If people want to return something from a ({ }) construct, they should 
> do it
> explicitly, e.g.
>
> #define setcc(cc) ({ \
> 	partial_status &= ~(SW_C0|SW_C1|SW_C2|SW_C3); \
> 	partial_status |= (cc) & (SW_C0|SW_C1|SW_C2|SW_C3); \
> 	partial_status; \
> })

No, they generally should use an inline function instead.


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/