Re: [PATCH 16/16] fix handling of integer constant expressions

[Segher Boessenkool <segher@kernel.crashing.org>]

> > Hopefully correct handling of integer constant expressions.  Please, 
> > review.
>
> Heh...  The first catches are lovely:
>                  struct fxsrAlignAssert {
>                          int _:!(offsetof(struct task_struct,
>                                          thread.i387.fxsave) & 15);
>                  };

That's...  wow?

> #define _IOC_TYPECHECK(t) \
>         ((sizeof(t) == sizeof(t[1]) && \
>           sizeof(t) < (1 << _IOC_SIZEBITS)) ? \
>           sizeof(t) : __invalid_size_argument_for_IOC)
> poisoning _IOW() et.al., so those who do something like
>
> static const char *v4l1_ioctls[] = {
>         [_IOC_NR(VIDIOCGCAP)]       = "VIDIOCGCAP",
>
> run into trouble.

> The only reason that doesn't break gcc to hell and back is
> that gcc has unfixed bugs in that area.

If I understand correctly what bugs you are talking about,
most (all?) of those were solved in the dark ages already
(i.e., the 3.x series).

> It certainly is not a valid C

Why not?  Nothing in the C standard says all your externs
have to be defined in some other translation unit you link
with AFAIK.

> or even a remotely sane one.

It's unusual at least :-)


Segher

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/