On Sun, Jun 24, 2007 at 09:05:51AM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
>
> Hopefully correct handling of integer constant expressions. Please, review.
Heh... The first catches are lovely:
struct fxsrAlignAssert {
int _:!(offsetof(struct task_struct,
thread.i387.fxsave) & 15);
};
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() et.al., so those who do something like
static const char *v4l1_ioctls[] = {
[_IOC_NR(VIDIOCGCAP)] = "VIDIOCGCAP",
run into trouble. The former is "tell jbeulich to cut down on crack",
but the latter... Probably ought to be
#define _IOC_TYPECHECK(t) \
(sizeof(t) + BUILD_BUG_ON_ZERO(sizeof(t) == sizeof(t[1]) && \
sizeof(t) < (1 << _IOC_SIZEBITS)))
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.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
