| 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
| ||
|
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