[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0703120748310.6942@CPE00045a9c397f-CM001225dbafb6>
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2007 07:49:16 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Robert P. J. Day" <rpjday@...dspring.com>
To: Stefan Richter <stefanr@...6.in-berlin.de>
cc: Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
Jan Beulich <jbeulich@...ell.com>, Andi Kleen <ak@....de>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] BUILD_BUG_ON_ZERO -> BUILD_BUG_OR_ZERO
On Mon, 12 Mar 2007, Stefan Richter wrote:
> Rusty Russell wrote:
> > On Mon, 2007-03-12 at 08:23 +0000, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >> I have to admit that I don't see the point here - I can't seem to make
> >> any sense of the OR... Jan
> >
> > At least one other person thought that:
> >
> > #define BUILD_BUG_ON_ZERO(e) BUILD_BUG_ON((e) == 0)
> >
> > OTOH, BUILD_BUG_OR_ZERO says what happens: either it's a build bug, or
> > it's zero.
>
> What about ZERO_UNLESS_BUILD_BUG_ON(e)? It's long though...
how often is this going to be used? it's not like the tree is
currently awash in calls to BUILD_BUG_ON_ZERO as it is.
rday
--
========================================================================
Robert P. J. Day
Linux Consulting, Training and Annoying Kernel Pedantry
Waterloo, Ontario, CANADA
http://fsdev.net/wiki/index.php?title=Main_Page
========================================================================
-
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