On Fri, 1 Dec 2006, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> 
> But at times, some of the gcc extensions aren't necessarily that well 
> defined or thought out, or simply not worth it. The extended type system 
> for enums in gcc is just basically messy, and it doesn't really offer you 
> anything important.

Btw, try this stupid program, to see just how _strange_ gcc enums are.. A 
sizeof of the enum is not the same as the size of the individual entries. 

Notice also how the size of the enum entry is _not_ tied to the type of 
the expression it had, but literally to its _value_. The size of "one" 
ends up being 4, even though it was initialized with a "1ll" value.

So with gcc-enums, you CANNOT get a sane type result.

In contrast, if you want sane types, you could easily do

        #define one (1ull)
        #define other (0x10000ull)
        #define strange (0x100000000ull)

and they'd all have the same type (and having the same type means that 
they act the same in expressions - you get the same expression type in 
mixing these values, _unlike_ the insane gcc enum cases)

                Linus

---
enum hello {
        one = 1ll,
        other = 0x10000,
        bigval = 0x1000000000000ll,
};

int main(int argc, char **argv)
{
        printf("%zu %zu %zu %zu\n",
                sizeof(enum hello),
                sizeof(one),
                sizeof(other),
                sizeof(bigval));
        return 0;
}
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-sparse" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Reply via email to