Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 03 Sep 2008 11:57:07 +0300 | From | Boaz Harrosh <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 5/5 ver2] debug: BUILD_BUG_ON: error on non-const expressions |
| |
Jan Beulich wrote: >>>> Boaz Harrosh <bharrosh@panasas.com> 02.09.08 17:57 >>> >> -#define BUILD_BUG_ON_ZERO(e) (sizeof(char[1 - 2 * !!(e)]) - 1) >> +#define BUILD_BUG_ON_ZERO(e) (sizeof(struct { int:-!!(e); })) >> + >> +/* Force a compilation error if condition is true */ >> +#define BUILD_BUG_ON(e) \ >> + do { struct {int:-!!(e); } x __maybe_unused;} while(0) > > As indicated before, you should at the very least use __x as the variable > name. >
The name does not matter. The scope of x is confined to the do {} while() and will not interfere with any local or global name.
> But didn't you have reservations against using a bitfield here? Or was it > really just the void cast on the sizeof() that you disliked? >
I like it it's fine. Also an added bonus is that on the good case it compiles to a size-less structure in a code-less block so even the most stupid non-optimizing compiler will get it right. OK that could be done with 0-length array too. But for consistency's sake I like it that both macros are the same.
> Jan >
I would like it if you sent your Signed-off-by: (or something) on this patch. Thanks for your help Boaz
| |