Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 5 Jan 2011 04:10:18 +0100 | From | Frederic Weisbecker <> | Subject | Re: [RFC patch 3/5] ftrace trace event add missing semicolumn |
| |
On Tue, Jan 04, 2011 at 10:01:33PM -0500, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote: > On Wed, 05 Jan 2011 03:08:02 +0100, Frederic Weisbecker said: > > On Tue, Jan 04, 2011 at 07:18:37PM -0500, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote: > > > > > > --- linux-2.6-lttng.orig/include/trace/ftrace.h > > > > > +++ linux-2.6-lttng/include/trace/ftrace.h > > > > > @@ -69,7 +69,7 @@ > > > > > #undef DEFINE_EVENT > > > > > #define DEFINE_EVENT(template, name, proto, args) \ > > > > > static struct ftrace_event_call __used \ > > > > > - __attribute__((__aligned__(4))) event_##name > > > > > + __attribute__((__aligned__(4))) event_##name; > > > > Adding this semicolumn here ensures that all Ftrace macros are consistent wrt > > > semicolumns. We can get away without consistency currently exactly because the > > > current scheme adds many useless semicolumns between each TRACE_EVENT(). > > > Are you sure you want to put so much time on this? > > > This will require a massive change for the sole win of removing double ";" > > in generated code. This won't optimize much the build, and it will make the things > > not so much more readable for very rare people who dare to have interest into the > > TRACE_EVENT generated code. That notwithstanding the obfuscation of that generated > > code resides more in the lack of indentation and newlines than in double > > semicolons that we barely notice. > > Can DEFINE_EVENT ever be sensibly used in a context where the additional ; will > cause an issue (for instance, a hypothetical array initialization like: > > static struct events[] = {DEFINE_EVENT(..), DEFINE_EVENT(...) }
You can't do the above as DEFINE_EVENT() do more than just creating a structure. It can define functions and so.
Plus it doesn't behave the same whether CREATE_TRACE_POINTS is defined or not: it can either define or declare the functions and structures.
> or other places we usually do the 'do { X } while (0)' trick to make the code legal?
I just can't figure out a sane case.
| |