[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Mon, 1 Jan 2007 20:11:02 +0100 (MET)
From: Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@...ux01.gwdg.de>
To: Segher Boessenkool <segher@...nel.crashing.org>
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.
On Jan 1 2007 18:51, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
>> 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.
Perhaps. But that won't work with defines where typeof is involved.
-`J'
--
-
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