[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20121117143840.GB16441@x1.osrc.amd.com>
Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2012 15:38:41 +0100
From: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To: Daniel Santos <daniel.santos@...ox.com>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Christopher Li <sparse@...isli.org>,
David Daney <david.daney@...ium.com>,
David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>,
Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>,
Konstantin Khlebnikov <khlebnikov@...nvz.org>,
linux-sparse@...r.kernel.org,
Michel Lespinasse <walken@...gle.com>,
Paul Gortmaker <paul.gortmaker@...driver.com>,
Pavel Pisa <pisa@....felk.cvut.cz>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 6/9] bug.h: Prevent double evaulation of in
BUILD_BUG_ON
On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 01:11:15PM -0600, Daniel Santos wrote:
> Ah yes. I did notice that at one point, but I think it slipped
> my mind. Also, the kernel has introduced me to the usage of the
> !! construct, of which I'm well versed in its affects in various
> situations and how gcc's optimizer ends up treating its usage, so
> probably another reason I didn't change it immediately. But it's
> basically shorthand for the expression (condition ? 1 : 0), correct?
I don't think so: "!!" is simply a double negation which turns the
whatever wild construct you have into either 0 or 1, depending on what
it evaluates to.
But I don't know what the standard says so you'll have to check :-)
Thanks.
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
--
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