On Mon, 2007-03-12 at 15:14 +0100, Stefan Richter wrote:
> Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> > On Mon, 12 Mar 2007, Stefan Richter wrote:
> >> Rusty Russell wrote:
> >> > OTOH, BUILD_BUG_OR_ZERO says what happens: either it's a build bug, or
> >> > it's zero.
> >>
> >> What about
Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Mar 2007, Stefan Richter wrote:
>> Rusty Russell wrote:
>> > OTOH, BUILD_BUG_OR_ZERO says what happens: either it's a build bug, or
>> > it's zero.
>>
>> What about ZERO_UNLESS_BUILD_BUG_ON(e)? It's long though...
>
> how often is this going to be used? it's
On Mon, 12 Mar 2007, Stefan Richter wrote:
> Rusty Russell wrote:
> > On Mon, 2007-03-12 at 08:23 +, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >> I have to admit that I don't see the point here - I can't seem to make
> >> any sense of the OR... Jan
> >
> > At least one other person thought that:
> >
> >
Rusty Russell wrote:
> On Mon, 2007-03-12 at 08:23 +, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> I have to admit that I don't see the point here - I can't seem to make
>> any sense of the OR... Jan
>
> At least one other person thought that:
>
> #define BUILD_BUG_ON_ZERO(e) BUILD_BUG_ON((e) == 0)
>
>
On Mon, Mar 12, 2007 at 10:28:13AM +1100, Rusty Russell wrote:
> BUILD_BUG_ON_ZERO is named perfectly wrong, and BUILD_BUG_ON_RETURN_ZERO
> is too long. Flip three bits, and the name is much more suitable.
Ok for me.
-Andi
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe
On Mon, 2007-03-12 at 08:23 +, Jan Beulich wrote:
> I have to admit that I don't see the point here - I can't seem to make
> any sense of the OR... Jan
At least one other person thought that:
#define BUILD_BUG_ON_ZERO(e) BUILD_BUG_ON((e) == 0)
OTOH, BUILD_BUG_OR_ZERO says what
On Mar 12 2007 08:23, Jan Beulich wrote:
>
>I have to admit that I don't see the point here - I can't seem to make any
>sense of the OR... Jan
BUILD_BUG_OR_ZERO will either (a) result in a build bug or (b) the number
zero, suitable for arithmetic.
Rusty Russell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 12.03.07
I have to admit that I don't see the point here - I can't seem to make any
sense of the OR... Jan
>>> Rusty Russell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 12.03.07 00:28 >>>
BUILD_BUG_ON_ZERO is named perfectly wrong, and BUILD_BUG_ON_RETURN_ZERO
is too long. Flip three bits, and the name is much more suitable.
I have to admit that I don't see the point here - I can't seem to make any
sense of the OR... Jan
Rusty Russell [EMAIL PROTECTED] 12.03.07 00:28
BUILD_BUG_ON_ZERO is named perfectly wrong, and BUILD_BUG_ON_RETURN_ZERO
is too long. Flip three bits, and the name is much more suitable.
On Mar 12 2007 08:23, Jan Beulich wrote:
I have to admit that I don't see the point here - I can't seem to make any
sense of the OR... Jan
BUILD_BUG_OR_ZERO will either (a) result in a build bug or (b) the number
zero, suitable for arithmetic.
Rusty Russell [EMAIL PROTECTED] 12.03.07 00:28
On Mon, 2007-03-12 at 08:23 +, Jan Beulich wrote:
I have to admit that I don't see the point here - I can't seem to make
any sense of the OR... Jan
At least one other person thought that:
#define BUILD_BUG_ON_ZERO(e) BUILD_BUG_ON((e) == 0)
OTOH, BUILD_BUG_OR_ZERO says what
On Mon, Mar 12, 2007 at 10:28:13AM +1100, Rusty Russell wrote:
BUILD_BUG_ON_ZERO is named perfectly wrong, and BUILD_BUG_ON_RETURN_ZERO
is too long. Flip three bits, and the name is much more suitable.
Ok for me.
-Andi
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
Rusty Russell wrote:
On Mon, 2007-03-12 at 08:23 +, Jan Beulich wrote:
I have to admit that I don't see the point here - I can't seem to make
any sense of the OR... Jan
At least one other person thought that:
#define BUILD_BUG_ON_ZERO(e) BUILD_BUG_ON((e) == 0)
OTOH,
On Mon, 12 Mar 2007, Stefan Richter wrote:
Rusty Russell wrote:
On Mon, 2007-03-12 at 08:23 +, Jan Beulich wrote:
I have to admit that I don't see the point here - I can't seem to make
any sense of the OR... Jan
At least one other person thought that:
#define
Robert P. J. Day wrote:
On Mon, 12 Mar 2007, Stefan Richter wrote:
Rusty Russell wrote:
OTOH, BUILD_BUG_OR_ZERO says what happens: either it's a build bug, or
it's zero.
What about ZERO_UNLESS_BUILD_BUG_ON(e)? It's long though...
how often is this going to be used? it's not like the
On Mon, 2007-03-12 at 15:14 +0100, Stefan Richter wrote:
Robert P. J. Day wrote:
On Mon, 12 Mar 2007, Stefan Richter wrote:
Rusty Russell wrote:
OTOH, BUILD_BUG_OR_ZERO says what happens: either it's a build bug, or
it's zero.
What about ZERO_UNLESS_BUILD_BUG_ON(e)? It's long
BUILD_BUG_ON_ZERO is named perfectly wrong, and BUILD_BUG_ON_RETURN_ZERO
is too long. Flip three bits, and the name is much more suitable.
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
diff -r 6fb745a5bb51 include/linux/compiler-gcc.h
--- a/include/linux/compiler-gcc.h Mon Mar 12
BUILD_BUG_ON_ZERO is named perfectly wrong, and BUILD_BUG_ON_RETURN_ZERO
is too long. Flip three bits, and the name is much more suitable.
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
diff -r 6fb745a5bb51 include/linux/compiler-gcc.h
--- a/include/linux/compiler-gcc.h Mon Mar 12 09:12:20
18 matches
Mail list logo