[lkml]   [2002]   [Oct]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: unhappy with current.h
    Daniele Lugli writes:
    > Mikael Pettersson wrote:
    > >
    > > Rik van Riel writes:
    > > > On Mon, 14 Oct 2002, Chris Wedgwood wrote:
    > > > > On Mon, Oct 14, 2002 at 09:46:08PM +0200, Daniele Lugli wrote:
    > > > >
    > > > > > I recently wrote a kernel module which gave me some mysterious
    > > > > > problems. After too many days spent in blood, sweat and tears, I found the cause:
    > > > >
    > > > > > *** one of my data structures has a field named 'current'. ***
    > > > >
    > > > > gcc -Wshadow
    > > >
    > > > Would it be a good idea to add -Wshadow to the kernel
    > > > compile options by default ?
    > >
    > > While I'm not defending macro abuse, please note that Daniele's problem
    > > appears to have been caused by using g++ instead of gcc or gcc -x c to
    > > compile a kernel module. Daniele's later example throws a syntax error
    > > in gcc, since the cpp output isn't legal C ...
    > >
    > > Hence I fail to see the utility of hacking in kludges for something
    > > that's not supposed to work anyway.
    > Yes i confess, i'm writing a kernel module in c++ (and i'm not the only
    > one).
    > Anyway my consideration was general and IMHO applies to C too. What is
    > the benefit of redefining commonly used words? I would say nothing
    > against eg #define _I386_current get_current(), but just #define current
    > get_current() seems to me a little bit dangerous. What is the limit?
    > What do you consider a bad practice? Would #define i j be tolerated?

    As I wrote above: "While I'm not defending macro abuse". #define i j is
    definitely macro abuse, and no sane programmer should do it.

    Any programming language has a set of reserved words, and any large piece
    of software has its own reserved words. Think of C++ "this" or C typedef names,
    for example. You don't expect new code to work if it violates the syntax of
    the system in which it is compiled, do you?

    "current" is just that: one of the Linux kernel's reserved words, one
    that kernel programmers are supposed to know about.

    > But let me at least summarize my poor-programmer-not-kernel-developer
    > point of view: at present the kernel if a mined field for c++ and i
    > understand it is not viable nor interesting for the majority to rewrite
    > it in a more c++-friendly way. But why not at least keep in mind, while
    > writing new stuff (not the case of current.h i see), that kernel headers
    > could be included by c++?

    1. The kernel is not written in C++.
    2. C++ is not C, and a C++ compiler is not a substitute for a C compiler.
    3. User-space should't include raw kernel headers but "sanitized" ones,
    provided e.g. by the C library.

    Ergo, the kernel headers should never be processed by a C++ compiler, and
    anyone doing it anyway is on their own.

    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:30    [W:0.022 / U:4.360 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site