[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CA+55aFx9x7Q0urXJHk7g2Fxqot0J=9YxaWcdmduwy=sm0DOduA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2011 10:31:45 -0800
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
Cc: David Daney <ddaney.cavm@...il.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"ralf@...ux-mips.org" <ralf@...ux-mips.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-arch@...r.kernel.org" <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>, DM <dm.n9107@...il.com>,
David Daney <david.daney@...ium.com>,
"Pinski, Andrew" <Andrew.Pinski@...iumnetworks.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/2] Stop some of the abuse of BUG() where compile time
checks should be used.
On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 2:24 AM, David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com> wrote:
>
> Have you tried asking the gcc folks if this is likely to get fixed soon?
I actually don't think it's a bug. The error message is associated
with the function declaration symbol, so it actually makes sense that
there can be only one error message per callee - not per caller.
Using "__LINE__" to then create fairly unique symbols (modulo
#include, of course) gets around it in a pretty natural way as ddaney
said, so if we care enough. I don't think it's a big issue (as
mentioned, I'd worry more about us making sure it's reliable enough to
be used - we've had gcc sometimes fail to compile things out just
because some optimization was not working well enough).
Linus
--
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