lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2007]   [Jan]   [1]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] Documentation: Explain a second alternative for multi-line macros.
On Mon, 1 Jan 2007, Segher Boessenkool wrote:

> > > 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.

sigh ... you're right. here's a thought. my original patch
submission simply added an explanation for allowing the ({ }) notation
for defining a multi-line macro, without getting into recommending an
actual coding style. at a minimum, something like that should be
added to the style document.

if someone wants to extend that explanation recommending *when* each
of those two styles should be used, feel free. but a simple
decription of alternatives should *at least* be added, no?

rday
-
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: 2007-01-01 09:35    [W:1.215 / U:0.168 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site