[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1254267572.15622.1621.camel@slab.beaverton.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2009 16:39:32 -0700
From: Hollis Blanchard <hollisb@...ibm.com>
To: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@...ell.com>
Cc: sfr@...b.auug.org.au, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, kvm-ppc@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-next@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: linux-next: tree build failure
On Tue, 2009-09-29 at 10:28 +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>> Hollis Blanchard 09/29/09 2:00 AM >>>
> >First, I think there is a real bug here, and the code should read like
> >this (to match the comment):
> > /* type has to be known at build time for optimization */
> >- BUILD_BUG_ON(__builtin_constant_p(type));
> >+ BUILD_BUG_ON(!__builtin_constant_p(type));
> >
> >However, I get the same build error *both* ways, i.e.
> >__builtin_constant_p(type) evaluates to both 0 and 1? Either that, or
> >the new BUILD_BUG_ON() macro isn't working...
>
> No, at this point of the compilation process it's neither zero nor one,
> it's simply considered non-constant by the compiler at that stage
> (this builtin is used for optimization, not during parsing, and the
> error gets generated when the body of the function gets parsed,
> not when code gets generated from it).
I think I see what you're saying. Do you have a fix to suggest?
--
Hollis Blanchard
IBM Linux Technology Center
--
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