[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2008 04:20:37 +0100
From: Segher Boessenkool <segher@...nel.crashing.org>
To: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Linux Arch Mailing List <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
David Brownell <dbrownell@...rs.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] Add C99-style constructor macros for specific-sized integers
> Although it is fully legal and correct C to write something like:
>
> (u64)0x123456789abcdef
>
> .. gcc will issue a warning on 32-bit systems that 0x123456789abcdef
> is too big for an "int", and that it has been transparently promoted,
> even though it is obvious that that is what the user intended in the
> first place.
[It says it is too big for 'long', actually].
That's because this is not valid ISO C90. GCC tries to help you out
by using the C99 rules (it has to do something, and terminating with
an error would be a bit rude). Perhaps the kernel should use C99
mode (-std=gnu99, to get the GNU C extensions).
> +#define S8_C(x) x
> +#define U8_C(x) x ## U
> +#define S16_C(x) x
> +#define U16_C(x) x ## U
> +#define S32_C(x) x
> +#define U32_C(x) x ## U
These are unnecessary, Linux requires an int to be at least 32 bits.
> +#define S64_C(x) x ## LL
> +#define U64_C(x) x ## ULL
Here you can use LL resp. ULL on all archs.
Do these new macros really buy anything over just writing LL in the
few places that 64-bit constants are used?
Segher
--
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