[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080819133422.GA24369@elte.hu>
Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2008 15:34:22 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Boaz Harrosh <bharrosh@...asas.com>
Cc: Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
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
* Boaz Harrosh <bharrosh@...asas.com> wrote:
> > Link time warnings are easy enough to miss.
> >
> > So unless there's a better way of doing it all at compile time (i'd
> > really prefer that!) i'd prefer the link time error about botched
> > BUILD_BUG_ON() conditions - as my commits introduce.
> >
> > Ingo
> > --
>
> #define BUILD_BUG_ON(condition) \
> do {
> enum { bad = !!(condition)}; \
> static struct { char arr[1 - 2*bad]; } x __maybe_unused; \
> } while(0)
>
> the enum definition will not let in anything not compile-time constant.
nice trick!
> But then I fail on: (include/linux/virtio_config.h:99)
>
> if (__builtin_constant_p(fbit))
> BUILD_BUG_ON(fbit >= 32);
>
> is that code broken?
hmm ... that's a bit sad, gcc ought to have been able to figure this
out. Can this be fixed somehow, without losing the strength of the
checking here? I think we should not change BUILD_BUG_ON() to make it
less useful.
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