On Tue, Jun 12, 2007 at 12:13:01AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > That looks ugly and also I am curious what the generated > assembly would look like. Hopefully the compiler is clever > enough to generate the same code, but I dunno. I was curious, too...the assembly generated by gcc -O2 is identical for both versions. > Unless somebody else more versed with C preprocessor tricks > comes along and offers a better advice, I would go with the > earlier simpler one with a big fat warning. I however would > prefer all caps name for a magic macro like this, whose sole > point is a huge side effect. Agreed on the all-caps (in either case) because of the side effects. The more I think about it, I think the inline'd version is better. Multiple evaluation pre-processor bugs are _nasty_ to find, and while the implementation is ugly, it's better to contain the ugliness to one spot than to introduce a dangerous interface that will be used all over. I'm a bit rusty on my preprocessor tricks, but ISTR that there really isn't a good way to portably avoid the problems. gcc has typeof, which we could use to make temporary copies (which gcc would presumably optimize out), but I imagine we don't want to be gcc-specific. We could conditionally use that construct, but maybe at that point we're getting as ugly as the inline). -Peff - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
