On 20.2.2012 00:21, Arnaud Lacombe wrote: > On Sun, Feb 19, 2012 at 1:12 PM, Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On 02/19/2012 09:01 AM, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: >>> >>> On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 21:30, Andrew Morton<akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >>> wrote: >>>> It would be better to teach IS_ENABLED() to handle this situation. I >>>> don't think there's a way of doing this with cpp :( >>>> >>>> This limitation makes IS_ENABLED pretty dangerous, doesn't it? It >>>> makes it very easy to introduce build breakage with unexpected Kconfig >>>> combinations. >>> >>> >>> Indeed. Recently I discovered IS_ENABLED() and started recommending it >>> to people for new code. But now I've seen the CONFIG_NUMA breakage, >>> I no longer think this is a good recommendation. >> >> adding Michal & linux-kbuild to cc: list. >> > I do not really see any way to fix this, beside having a unique > architecture-wide configuration namespace :/ Having a single namespace, or less ambitiously, having less arch-specific config symbol definitions, would be a plus. IS_ENABLED requiring the symbol to be defined is not bad per se, it prevents typos. Michal -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-next" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
