Messages in this thread | | | From | Segher Boessenkool <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] Documentation: Explain a second alternative for multi-line macros. | Date | Mon, 1 Jan 2007 03:40:19 +0100 |
| |
>> In this case, the second form >> should be used when the macro needs to return a value (and you can't >> use an inline function for whatever reason), whereas the first form >> should be used at all other times. > > that's a fair point, although it's certainly not the coding style > that's in play now. for example, > > #define setcc(cc) ({ \ > partial_status &= ~(SW_C0|SW_C1|SW_C2|SW_C3); \ > partial_status |= (cc) & (SW_C0|SW_C1|SW_C2|SW_C3); })
This _does_ return a value though, bad example.
Segher
- 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/
| |