At Fri, 7 Nov 2008 03:05:56 -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote: > > On Fri, Nov 7, 2008 at 03:03, Takashi Iwai wrote: > > At Fri, 7 Nov 2008 02:57:40 -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote: > >> On Fri, Nov 7, 2008 at 02:38, Takashi Iwai wrote: > >> > At Fri, 7 Nov 2008 02:29:25 -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote: > >> >> it also breaks > >> >> valid C code if there were side effects in the (cond) as any other > >> >> macro which does not properly utilize every argument exactly once. > >> > > >> > BTW, what do you mean this exactly? > >> > >> any potent statement. such as assignment or pre/post increment/decrement or ... > > > > Well, in that case, such a code itself is buggy :) > > i'm not advocating doing this sort of thing, i'm saying that > functions/macros should be written correctly so as to not break > standard C behavior. a guy developing a codec driver could waste a > lot of time because of this sort of thing. Well, no, it's a clear bug of the driver. A macro that ignores arguments is normal. Or do you think assert() isn't a part of "standard" C ? :) Takashi _______________________________________________ Alsa-devel mailing list Alsa-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://mailman.alsa-project.org/mailman/listinfo/alsa-devel
