[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20070613002631.GL21478@ftp.linux.org.uk>
Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2007 01:26:31 +0100
From: Al Viro <viro@....linux.org.uk>
To: Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>,
Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Fix empty macros in acpi.
On Tue, Jun 12, 2007 at 08:21:15PM -0400, Dave Jones wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 13, 2007 at 01:00:29AM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 12, 2007 at 07:33:09PM -0400, Dave Jones wrote:
> > > +#define DBG(x...) do { } while(0)
> >
> > Eh... Please, stop it - if you want a function-call-like no-op returning void,
> > use ((void)0). At least that way one can say DBG(....),foo(), etc.
>
> They both end up compiled to nothing anyway, so I'm not bothered
> either way.. I'm not sure I follow why the syntax of that last part
> is a good thing. It looks like something we'd want to avoid rather
> than promote?
If on one side of ifdef it's a void-valued expression, so it should be
on another; the reason is that we don't get surprise differences between
the builds...
IOW, if it doesn't build in some context, it should consistently fail to
build in that context.
-
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