lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2012 13:08:03 -0700 From: Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com> To: Jim Cromie <jim.cromie@...il.com> Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [00/02] add BUILD_BUG_DECL assertion (for 3.4??) On Mon, 2012-04-09 at 13:52 -0600, Jim Cromie wrote: > On Sun, Apr 8, 2012 at 8:37 PM, Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com> wrote: > > Discontiguous array definitions must be ugly. > Ugly ? > too pejorative IMO Ugly code is not a pejorative, it's more an artifact of creation and always a beholder issue. > each array defn is a single statement. I thought you meant the array entries not the arrays themselves. > there may be functions between the 2 defns being compared. > > Maybe not ideal, > > > > >> Do you see advantages other than stylistic ones ? > > > > Not really. > > > > Contiguous declarations. > > No need for other markings. > > > > Seems useful enough. > > > > OK. Id expect your construct to be built upon mine, > we'd still need to start with something. > > Also, mine is usable for things yours isnt. > I dont have a good example, but a simple/silly one is: > > BUILD_BUG_DECL( wifi_channels_must_be_14, > ARRAY_SIZE(channels_table) == 14 ); Do what you think best. I think it's a solution for a relatively minor problem. The BUILD_BUG_DECL marking might be improved. BUILD_BUG_DECL might be a bit short or not descriptive enough. Maybe BUILD_BUG_DIFF_SIZE or BUILD_BUG_SIZE_NE? -- 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