On Mon, 1 Jan 2007, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> > > In this case, the second form
> > > should be used when the macro needs to return a value (and you can't
> > > use an inline function for whatever reason), whereas the first form
> > > should be used at all other times.
> >
> > that's a fair point, although it's certainly not the coding style
> > that's in play now. for example,
> >
> > #define setcc(cc) ({ \
> > partial_status &= ~(SW_C0|SW_C1|SW_C2|SW_C3); \
> > partial_status |= (cc) & (SW_C0|SW_C1|SW_C2|SW_C3); })
>
> This _does_ return a value though, bad example.
sigh ... you're right. here's a thought. my original patch
submission simply added an explanation for allowing the ({ }) notation
for defining a multi-line macro, without getting into recommending an
actual coding style. at a minimum, something like that should be
added to the style document.
if someone wants to extend that explanation recommending *when* each
of those two styles should be used, feel free. but a simple
decription of alternatives should *at least* be added, no?
rday
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
