"J.A. Magallón" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> {} is a compund command and ({ }) is a compund expression
> (or block expression, do not know which is the good name in engelish).
gcc calls it a statement expression.
Andreas.
--
Andreas Schwab, SuSE Labs, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
SuSE Linux Products Gmb
On Wed, 10 Jan 2007 07:16:55 -0500, "linux-os \(Dick Johnson\)" <[EMAIL
PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 10 Jan 2007, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 9 Jan 2007, linux-os (Dick Johnson) wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> On Tue, 9 Jan 2007, Stefan Richter wrote:
> >>
> >>> Robert P. J. Day wrote:
>
Robert P. J. Day wrote:
[...]
> what the above implies is
> that the ALIGN() macro can *never* be extended in that way because of
> the way it's being used in the struct definition above, outside of a
> function.
>
> doesn't that place an unnecessarily limit on what might be done with
> ALIGN() in
On Wed, 10 Jan 2007, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Jan 2007, linux-os (Dick Johnson) wrote:
>
>>
>> On Wed, 10 Jan 2007, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
>
>>> just FYI, the reason i brought this up in the first place is that
>>> i noticed that the ALIGN() macro in kernel.h didn't verify that
>>> t
On Wed, 10 Jan 2007, linux-os (Dick Johnson) wrote:
>
> On Wed, 10 Jan 2007, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> > just FYI, the reason i brought this up in the first place is that
> > i noticed that the ALIGN() macro in kernel.h didn't verify that
> > the alignment value was a power of 2, so i thought --
On Wed, 10 Jan 2007, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> On Tue, 9 Jan 2007, linux-os (Dick Johnson) wrote:
>
>>
>> On Tue, 9 Jan 2007, Stefan Richter wrote:
>>
>>> Robert P. J. Day wrote:
just to stir the pot a bit regarding the discussion of the two
different ways to define macros,
>>>
>>> Yo
On Tue, 9 Jan 2007, linux-os (Dick Johnson) wrote:
>
> On Tue, 9 Jan 2007, Stefan Richter wrote:
>
> > Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> >> just to stir the pot a bit regarding the discussion of the two
> >> different ways to define macros,
> >
> > You mean function-like macros, right?
> >
> >> i've jus
linux-os (Dick Johnson) wrote:
> On Tue, 9 Jan 2007, Stefan Richter wrote:
>> The limitations are certainly highly compiler-specific.
>
> I don't think so.
I referred to the ({ expr; }) in this remark, not to do-while. It's not
a valid construct in many flavors of the C language in the first plac
On Tue, 9 Jan 2007, Stefan Richter wrote:
> Robert P. J. Day wrote:
>> just to stir the pot a bit regarding the discussion of the two
>> different ways to define macros,
>
> You mean function-like macros, right?
>
>> i've just noticed that the "({ })"
>> notation is not universally acceptable.
Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> just to stir the pot a bit regarding the discussion of the two
> different ways to define macros,
You mean function-like macros, right?
> i've just noticed that the "({ })"
> notation is not universally acceptable. i've seen examples where
> using that notation causes
Robert P. J. Day wrote:
just to stir the pot a bit regarding the discussion of the two
different ways to define macros, i've just noticed that the "({ })"
notation is not universally acceptable. i've seen examples where
using that notation causes gcc to produce:
error: braced-group within e
just to stir the pot a bit regarding the discussion of the two
different ways to define macros, i've just noticed that the "({ })"
notation is not universally acceptable. i've seen examples where
using that notation causes gcc to produce:
error: braced-group within expression allowed only in
12 matches
Mail list logo
