lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2016]   [Aug]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
Patch in this message
/
From
Subject[PATCH 9/9] test/hash: Fix warning in preprocessor symbol evaluation
Date
From: George Spelvin <linux@sciencehorizons.net>

Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org> wrote:
> Some versions of gcc don't like tests for the value of an undefined
> preprocessor symbol, even in the #else branch of an #ifndef:

Damn, I had hoped that would work universally; I tried to avoid the
uglier #if-inside-#ifdef construction. GCC 6 is quite happy wth it.

But no objections.

If you want:
Acked-by: George Spelvin <linux@sciencehorizons.net>

But here's an alternative. Geert, what do you think of this?
Acked-by: George Spelvin <linux@sciencehorizons.net>

Signed-off-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
---
lib/test_hash.c | 6 +++---
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/lib/test_hash.c b/lib/test_hash.c
index 81702ee4c41c..ddd819fec343 100644
--- a/lib/test_hash.c
+++ b/lib/test_hash.c
@@ -221,17 +221,17 @@ test_hash_init(void)
/* Issue notices about skipped tests. */
#ifndef HAVE_ARCH__HASH_32
pr_info("__hash_32() has no arch implementation to test.");
-#elif HAVE_ARCH__HASH_32 != 1
+#elif HAVE_ARCH__HASH_32 + 0 != 1
pr_info("__hash_32() is arch-specific; not compared to generic.");
#endif
#ifndef HAVE_ARCH_HASH_32
pr_info("hash_32() has no arch implementation to test.");
-#elif HAVE_ARCH_HASH_32 != 1
+#elif HAVE_ARCH_HASH_32 + 0 != 1
pr_info("hash_32() is arch-specific; not compared to generic.");
#endif
#ifndef HAVE_ARCH_HASH_64
pr_info("hash_64() has no arch implementation to test.");
-#elif HAVE_ARCH_HASH_64 != 1
+#elif HAVE_ARCH_HASH_64 + 0 != 1
pr_info("hash_64() is arch-specific; not compared to generic.");
#endif

--
2.9.0
\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2016-08-11 00:41    [W:0.136 / U:1.136 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site