[lkml]   [2007]   [Jun]   [24]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [PATCH 16/16] fix handling of integer constant expressions

    On Sun, 24 Jun 2007, Al Viro wrote:
    > Heh... The first catches are lovely:
    > struct fxsrAlignAssert {
    > int _:!(offsetof(struct task_struct,
    > thread.i387.fxsave) & 15);

    Ok, that's a bit odd.

    > as an idiotic way to do BUILD_BUG() and
    > #define _IOC_TYPECHECK(t) \
    > ((sizeof(t) == sizeof(t[1]) && \
    > sizeof(t) < (1 << _IOC_SIZEBITS)) ? \
    > sizeof(t) : __invalid_size_argument_for_IOC)
    > poisoning _IOW(), so those who do something like
    > static const char *v4l1_ioctls[] = {

    On the other hand, this one really does seem to be "nice".

    I don't think it's a misfeature to be able to do "obvious compile-time
    constant optimizations" on initializer indexes. The bitfield size thing in
    some ways does do the same thing - it's clearly _odd_, but if I had my
    choice, I'd prefer a language that allows it over one that doesn't.

    > Objections? The only reason that doesn't break gcc to hell and back is
    > that gcc has unfixed bugs in that area. It certainly is not a valid C
    > or even a remotely sane one.

    I agree that it's obviously not "valid C", but I don't agree that it's not
    remotely sane. Why not allow that extension?

    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: 2007-06-24 20:09    [W:0.022 / U:0.280 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site