On Sun, Jun 24, 2007 at 12:04:44PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > > On Sun, 24 Jun 2007, Al Viro wrote: > > > > Why? I'd say it's not better than BUILD_BUG_ON_ZERO() use > > instead of that ?: > > Oh, _that_ part I have no problem with. It's more that it seems that the > gcc optimization is ok at least as an extension. gcc logs: * expressions of form <....> can be reduced to cheaper form by <....>. Tested and merged. gcc logs a year later: * revert commit <...>, it causes subtle problems (see PR<....>, <....> and <....>). Proposed replacement is too intrusive for stable branch. gcc logs a month later: * tested and merged the real fix for PR<....>; will go into the next release. foobar logs a year later: * gcc versions between <...> and <...> refuse to compile baz.c, complain about non-constant index in initializer. Waded through the sewers of macros we have in barf.h and blah.h, found what had been causing that. Fixed. Ain't fun... - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-sparse" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
