On Thu, Jul 05, 2007 at 08:36:35AM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
> Wow. Insane. So these all declare the same type:
> __attribute__((foo)) T *v;
> T __attribute__((foo)) *v;
> T *__attribute__((foo)) v;
> ? Specifically, they point to a foo-T, for convenient shooting?
They all give you foo-pointer-to-T.
T (__attribute__((foo)) *v);
would give pointer-to-foo-T.
> context also represents a qualifier; the position of the qualifier should
> determine things like whether you want to enforce the context when you access
> a pointer or dereference a pointer.
Since __context__ is (sparse-only) keyword, we are not constrained by
anything anyway.
> > Frankly, I would rather add a new primitive (__qualifier__) mirroring the
> > __attribute__, but acting like real qualifiers do. And switched the
> > noderef et.al. to it.
>
> Something like that sounds vaguely reasonable. It should allow the same set
> of attributes, and just change what they apply to. To use your example,
> T __qualifier__((foo)) *v;
> and
> T (__attribute__((foo)) *v);
> would mean the same thing.
Yup, except that it would not accept storage-class-like attributes (e.g.
always_inline). And yes, __qualifier__((context(...))) probably might
be a replacement for __context__, to reduce the number of primitives.
-
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]
