[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080817184510.GA16508@elte.hu>
Date: Sun, 17 Aug 2008 20:45:10 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Sam Ravnborg <sam@...nborg.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] debug: fix BUILD_BUG_ON() for non-constant expressions
* Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
>
>
> On Sun, 17 Aug 2008, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >
> > try the patch below - it only gives this error during build:
>
> Well, you didn't do it right:
>
> > +#define __BBO(c) sizeof(const char[1 - 2*!!(c)])
> > +#define __BBONC(c) __BBO(!__builtin_constant_p(c))
> > +#define BUILD_BUG_ON_ZERO2(c) (__BBO(c) - __BBONC(c))
> > +#define BUILD_BUG_ON2(c) (void)BUILD_BUG_ON_ZERO(c)
>
> Look at the #define of BUILD_BUG_ON2 a bit more.
>
> Hint: you're using the _wrong_ BUILD_BUG_ON_ZERO. The old one, not the v2
> one!
yeah, i already tried various variants earlier today so i really didnt try
that hard with yours. (and i pointed out this mistake in the previous mail)
> That said, with that fixed, there's still something wrong. It does seem
> like gcc has some very odd interaction there with __builtin_constant_p.
> Odd.
yeah. I tried various integer arithmetic expressions (which the array trick
relies on) and it didnt work as expected - it's always zero. It only makes
a difference when used in comparisons. (and that's where the kernel uses
__builtin_constant_p quite heavily, and it works fine there.)
Odd indeed.
Ingo
--
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