![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
On Wed, 1 Aug 2007, Paul Mackerras wrote: > > It will mean more code on architectures which have a > conditional-trap-on-nonzero instruction, such as powerpc, since the > compiler will generate instructions to evaluate !!x. But I don't see > any reason why ret_warn_on couldn't be a long. Umm. The WARN_ON() might actually get a "long long" value for all we know. Ie it's perfectly possible that the WARN_ON might look like /* Must not have high bits on */ WARN_ON(offset & 0xffffffff00000000); which on a 32-bit pcc would apparently do the wrong thing entirely as it stands now. No? I think I'll commit the !!(x) version, and you guys can try to figure out what the right thing is long-term. For all I know, the proper solution is to just revert the whole mess, and *not* make WARN_ON() return a value at all, since that seems to be the fundamental mistake here. Linus - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ | ||||||||||||
| Last update: 2007-08-01 04:11 [W:0.608 / U:5.970 seconds] ©2003-2008 Jasper Spaans | |||||||||||||