Having __v as the variable name for the definition of different macros
leads to
the namespace pollution. For example,
readl(p)
unrolls to:
({ u32 __v = ({ u32 __v = (( __u32)(__le32)(( __le32) ((void)0,
*(volatile unsigned int *)((p); __v; }); __asm__ __volatile__ (mcr
p15,
, %0, c7,
Hello,
On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 04:22:01PM +0530, Varadarajan, Charulatha wrote:
From: Sourav Poddar sourav.pod...@ti.com
Having __v as the variable name for the definition of different macros leads
to
the namespace pollution. For example,
readl(p)
unrolls to:
({ u32 __v = ({ u32 __v =
On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 03:01:17PM +0100, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
I wonder if it's not better to make these static inlines instead. Then
no naming conflicts can occur. And maybe we'd catch some more strange
things because p gets a proper type.
I don't know how this influences gcc though.
From: Sourav Poddar sourav.pod...@ti.com
Having __v as the variable name for the definition of different macros leads to
the namespace pollution. For example,
readl(p)
unrolls to:
({ u32 __v = ({ u32 __v = (( __u32)(__le32)(( __le32) ((void)0,
*(volatile unsigned int *)((p); __v; }); __asm__
