Re: [PATCH] Documentation: Explain a second alternative for multi-line macros.

On Jan 1 2007 18:51, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
>> If people want to return something from a ({ }) construct, they should do
>> it
>> explicitly, e.g.
>> 
>> #define setcc(cc) ({ \
>> partial_status &= ~(SW_C0|SW_C1|SW_C2|SW_C3); \
>> partial_status |= (cc) & (SW_C0|SW_C1|SW_C2|SW_C3); \
>> partial_status; \
>> })
>
> No, they generally should use an inline function instead.

Perhaps. But that won't work with defines where typeof is involved.


	-`J'
-- 
-
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/

---

• References:
  • Re: [PATCH] Documentation: Explain a second alternative for multi-line macros.
    • From: Jan Engelhardt <[email protected]>
  • Re: [PATCH] Documentation: Explain a second alternative for multi-line macros.
    • From: Segher Boessenkool <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: x86 instability with 2.6.1{8,9}
• Next by Date: Re: [RFC] HZ free ntp
• Previous by thread: Re: [PATCH] Documentation: Explain a second alternative for multi-line macros.
• Next by thread: [PATCH] x86-64 Calgary: tighten up printks
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread

[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]