[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0701181208330.31997@CPE00045a9c397f-CM001225dbafb6>
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2007 12:10:35 -0500 (EST)
From: "Robert P. J. Day" <rpjday@...dspring.com>
To: Tim Schmielau <tim@...sik3.uni-rostock.de>
cc: Linux kernel mailing list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Roman Zippel <zippel@...ux-m68k.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Centralize the macro definition of "__packed".
On Thu, 18 Jan 2007, Tim Schmielau wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Jan 2007, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
>
> > actually, it *appears* that the standard works this way. the macro
> > "__deprecated" is defined in compiler-gcc.h with:
> >
> > #define __deprecated __attribute__((deprecated))
> >
> > while the more generic compiler.h handles whether or not it was
> > defined:
> >
> > #ifndef __deprecated
> > # define __deprecated /* unimplemented */
> > #endif
> >
> > so i'm guessing that's how any new attribute shortcut macros should be
> > handled, yes?
>
> Well, since the definitions lived well in compiler-generic land for
> quite some time, I'd guess it should be ok not to #ifndef - guard
> them. likely() and unlikely() are currently handled like that. If
> the need ever arises to make them compiler specific, whoever does
> that can still add the #ifndef then.
as it is, i believe the only two compilers that are officially
supported for building the kernel are gcc and icc, and icc identifies
itself as a GNU compiler anyway, so adding to compiler-gcc.h should be
safe until the situation changes.
and, as you say, if the situation changes, fixing compiler.h would be
easy.
rday
-
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