On Jan 1 2007 18:51, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
>> If people want to return something from a ({ }) construct, they should do
>> it
>> explicitly, e.g.
>>
>> #define setcc(cc) ({ \
>> partial_status &= ~(SW_C0|SW_C1|SW_C2|SW_C3); \
>> partial_status |= (cc) & (SW_C0|SW_C1|SW_C2|SW_C3); \
>> partial
If people want to return something from a ({ }) construct, they should
do it
explicitly, e.g.
#define setcc(cc) ({ \
partial_status &= ~(SW_C0|SW_C1|SW_C2|SW_C3); \
partial_status |= (cc) & (SW_C0|SW_C1|SW_C2|SW_C3); \
partial_status; \
})
No, they generally should use
Robert P. J. Day wrote:
On Mon, 1 Jan 2007, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
On Sun, Dec 31, 2006 at 02:32:25PM -0500, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
+ (a) Enclose those statements in a do - while block:
+
+ #define macrofun(a, b, c) \
+ do {\
+
On Dec 31 2006 19:23, Randy Dunlap wrote:
>> >
>> > #define setcc(cc) ({ \
>> > partial_status &= ~(SW_C0|SW_C1|SW_C2|SW_C3); \
>> > partial_status |= (cc) & (SW_C0|SW_C1|SW_C2|SW_C3); })
>>
>> This _does_ return a value though, bad example.
>
> Where does it return a value? I don't see any use
On Mon, 1 Jan 2007, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 31, 2006 at 02:32:25PM -0500, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> > + (a) Enclose those statements in a do - while block:
> > +
> > + #define macrofun(a, b, c) \
> > + do {\
> > +
On Sun, Dec 31, 2006 at 02:32:25PM -0500, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> + (a) Enclose those statements in a do - while block:
> +
> + #define macrofun(a, b, c) \
> + do {\
> + if (a == 5) \
> +
On Mon, 1 Jan 2007, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> > > In this case, the second form
> > > should be used when the macro needs to return a value (and you can't
> > > use an inline function for whatever reason), whereas the first form
> > > should be used at all other times.
> >
> > that's a fair poin
Segher Boessenkool wrote:
#define setcc(cc) ({ \
partial_status &= ~(SW_C0|SW_C1|SW_C2|SW_C3); \
partial_status |= (cc) & (SW_C0|SW_C1|SW_C2|SW_C3); })
This _does_ return a value though, bad example.
Where does it return a value?
partial_status |=
as I expected (or suspected).
I
#define setcc(cc) ({ \
partial_status &= ~(SW_C0|SW_C1|SW_C2|SW_C3); \
partial_status |= (cc) & (SW_C0|SW_C1|SW_C2|SW_C3); })
This _does_ return a value though, bad example.
Where does it return a value?
partial_status |=
I don't see any uses of it
Ah, that's a separate thing --
Segher Boessenkool wrote:
In this case, the second form
should be used when the macro needs to return a value (and you can't
use an inline function for whatever reason), whereas the first form
should be used at all other times.
that's a fair point, although it's certainly not the coding style
t
In this case, the second form
should be used when the macro needs to return a value (and you can't
use an inline function for whatever reason), whereas the first form
should be used at all other times.
that's a fair point, although it's certainly not the coding style
that's in play now. for exa
On Sun, 31 Dec 2006, Muli Ben-Yehuda wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 31, 2006 at 02:49:48PM -0500, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
>
> > there would appear to be *lots* of cases where the ({ }) notation
> > is used when nothing is being returned. i'm not sure you can be
> > that adamant about that distinction at th
On Sun, 31 Dec 2006 22:09:03 +0200 Muli Ben-Yehuda wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 31, 2006 at 02:49:48PM -0500, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
>
> > there would appear to be *lots* of cases where the ({ }) notation is
> > used when nothing is being returned. i'm not sure you can be that
> > adamant about that di
On Sun, Dec 31, 2006 at 02:49:48PM -0500, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> there would appear to be *lots* of cases where the ({ }) notation is
> used when nothing is being returned. i'm not sure you can be that
> adamant about that distinction at this point.
IMHO, the main point of CodingStyle is to c
On Sun, 31 Dec 2006, Muli Ben-Yehuda wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 31, 2006 at 02:32:25PM -0500, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
>
> > Generally, inline functions are preferable to macros resembling
> > functions.
>
> This should be stressed, IMHO. We have too many macros which have no
> reason to live.
>
> > -M
On Sun, Dec 31, 2006 at 02:32:25PM -0500, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> Generally, inline functions are preferable to macros resembling
> functions.
This should be stressed, IMHO. We have too many macros which have no
reason to live.
> -Macros with multiple statements should be enclosed in a do -
Add an explanation for defining multi-line macros using the ({ })
notation to CodingStyle.
Signed-off-by: Robert P. J. Day <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
diff --git a/Documentation/CodingStyle b/Documentation/CodingStyle
index 9069189..1d0ddb8 100644
--- a/Documentation/CodingStyle
+++ b/Documentati
17 matches
Mail list logo
