From: David Laight
> Sent: 27 August 2023 22:52
>
> ...
> > Of course, we can also use the __stringify() trick to do so, but it is
> > expensive (bigger size, worse performance) to unstringify and get the number
> > again, the expensive atoi() 'works' for the numeric __NR_*, but not work for
> > (__NR_*_base + offset) like __NR_* definitions (used by ARM and MIPS), a simple
> > interpreter is required for such cases and it is more expensive than atoi().
> >
> > /* not for ARM and MIPS */
> >
> > static int atoi(const char *s);
> > #define __get_nr(name) __nr_atoi(__stringify(__NR_##name))
> > #define __nr_atoi(str) (str[0] == '_' ? -1L : ___nr_atoi(str))
> > #define ___nr_atoi(str) (str[0] == '(' ? -1L : atoi(str))
> >
> > Welcome more discussion or let's simply throw away this direction ;-)
>
> While it will look horrid the it ought to be possible to
> get the compiler to evaluate the string.
...
> So something that starts:
> #define dig(c) (c < '0' || c > '9' ? 999999 : c - '0')
> str[0] == '_' ? -1 :
> str[0] != '(' ? str[1] == ' ' ? dig(str[0]) :
> str[2] == '1' ? (dig(str[0]) * 10 + dig(str[1]) :
> Any unexpected character will expand the 99999 and generate
> an over-large result.
See https://godbolt.org/z/rear4c1hj
That will convert "1234" or "(1234 + 5678)" (or shorter numbers)
as a compile-time constant.
David
-
Registered Address Lakeside, Bramley Road, Mount Farm, Milton Keynes, MK1 1PT, UK
Registration No: 1397386 (Wales)
