Rob Landley wrote:
On Sunday 15 February 2009 06:30:12 Bernhard Reutner-Fischer wrote:
On Sun, Feb 15, 2009 at 01:03:04PM +0100, Denys Vlasenko wrote:
On Sunday 15 February 2009 02:07, Rob Landley wrote:
This is the case when #if is better than if
(because #if would work, and if won't):
Or, alternately, this is a case where the kconfig logic isn't doing what
we want, and fixing it is one line:
Index: scripts/kconfig/confdata.c
===================================================================
--- scripts/kconfig/confdata.c (revision 25316)
+++ scripts/kconfig/confdata.c (working copy)
@@ -524,6 +524,7 @@
}
case S_INT:
str = sym_get_string_value(sym);
+ if (!*str) str="0";
fprintf(out, "CONFIG_%s=%s\n", sym->name, str);
if (out_h) {
fprintf(out_h, "#define CONFIG_%s %s\n",
sym->name, str);
Applied, thanks!
Shouldn't this better use the lower_bound -1 iff it's a range?
My general theory for chosing 0 was:
A) this only triggers when it's disabled by a dependency on another boolean
symbol anyway, so in theory the C code is going to be testing that other
symbol so the optimizer can remove it. So it doesn't really matter what
actual value it has as long as it resolves to a valid integer #define so it
doesn't cause a syntax error before it gets optimized away.
B) 0 is false in C.
If the value of the symbol was empty before, it should be valid C to use
"SYMBOL +0" or "SYMBOL -0". If SYMBOL is defined as an integer, this is
parsed as an expression with the value of SYMBOL. If SYMBOL is defined
as empty (not undefined), the "+0" or "-0" is parsed as an expression
with value 0.
Regards
Ralf Friedl
_______________________________________________
busybox mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/busybox
