[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <48E88A15.1010205@panasas.com>
Date: Sun, 05 Oct 2008 11:34:13 +0200
From: Boaz Harrosh <bharrosh@...asas.com>
To: Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
CC: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Ivo van Doorn <IvDoorn@...il.com>,
"John W. Linville" <linville@...driver.com>,
Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Theodore Tso <tytso@....edu>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Jan Beulich <jbeulich@...ell.com>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/5 ver2] debug: BUILD_BUG_ON: error on non-const expressions
Rusty Russell wrote:
> On Wednesday 03 September 2008 01:57:31 Boaz Harrosh wrote:
>> +#define BUILD_BUG_ON(e) \
>> + do { struct {int:-!!(e); } x __maybe_unused;} while(0)
>
> Why did you hate the void cast again? Simplest should
> be "(void)BUILD_BUG_ON_ZERO(e)". But if not, it seems to me that it's
> cleaner to do:
>
> #define BUILD_BUG_ON(e) \
> do { } while(BUILD_BUG_ON_ZERO(e))
>
I have not checked this exact variant, but the problems I had
is that wrong or non-const code was ignored by the compiler,
which is what I tried to solve.
> No chance of the compiler emitting unused vars.
>
There is no unused vars because the result is a zero-sized
struct which will never emit any code.
> Cheers,
> Rusty.
>
Is it that important? the code submitted does what is required
to the letter, should we spend more effort on this?
Boaz
--
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