Re: Question regarding the array of size 0.

[Andrew Brown]

On Tue, Mar 20, 2001 at 11:31:40AM -0800, Greywolf wrote:
>On Tue, 20 Mar 2001, Shankar Agarwal wrote:
>
># Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2001 10:54:35 -0800
># From: Shankar Agarwal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
># To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
># Cc: bsd hackers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
># Subject: Question regarding the array of size 0.
>#
># Hi All,
># #define syscallarg(x)                           \
>#     union {                             \
>#         register_t pad;                     \
>#         struct { x datum; } le;                 \
>#         struct {                        \
>#             int8_t pad[ (sizeof (register_t) < sizeof (x))  \
>#                 ? 0                 \
>#                 : sizeof (register_t) - sizeof (x)];    \
>#             x datum;                    \
>#         } be;                           \
>#     }
>#
># struct sys_exit_args {
>#     syscallarg(int) rval;
># };
>
>I thought ?: were evaluated at run-time, not compile-time?

any halfway decent optimizing compiler ought to be reducing the number
of useless constants in its output, this being an example of such.

-- 
|-----< "CODE WARRIOR" >-----|
[EMAIL PROTECTED]             * "ah!  i see you have the internet
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Andrew Brown)                that goes *ping*!"
[EMAIL PROTECTED]       * "information is power -- share the wealth."

To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message