On Sat, 16.08.14 13:29, Daniele Nicolodi (dani...@grinta.net) wrote:
>
> On 16/08/2014 12:35, David Herrmann wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 15, 2014 at 5:22 PM, Daniele Nicolodi <dani...@grinta.net>
> > wrote:
> >> this may be completely stupid, but if the only use case you have for
> >> CONST_MAX() is for computing the size of a data structure, I find
> >> something like
> >>
> >> #define MAXSIZE(A, B) sizeof(union { __typeof(A) a; __typeof(B) b;})
> >>
> >> a little more clear and less magic, and I believe it has the same
> >> guarantees that the solution you found.
> >
> > Your MAXSIZE macro might add padding:
>
> > This union has size 8, not 5 (64bit). But CONST_MAX would return 5.
> > Not sure whether that really matters, though. And we could probably
> > add __packed__ to the definition.
>
> Indeed it does add padding. Adding the __packed__ attribute solves the
> problem:
>
> #define MAXSIZE(A, B) sizeof( \
> union __attribute__((__packed__)) { \
> __typeof(A) a; __typeof(B) b;})
I like this actually. I am also fine with CONST_MAX(). I'd also be fine
with having both... ;-)
Lennart
--
Lennart Poettering, Red Hat
_______________________________________________
systemd-devel mailing list
systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
