Re: Nasal demons in preprocessor use (Re: [PATCH] test-suite: new preprocessor test case)

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 07:04:09PM +0000, Al Viro wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 07:08:53PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > 
> > * Vegard Nossum <vegard.nossum@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > 
> > > I guess this means that kmemcheck branch should be withdrawn from 
> > > linux-next, at least temporarily, as I have no immediate 
> > > workarounds/alternatives. Stephen, can you drop it?
> > 
> > Al Viro, well done :-(
> > 
> > 	Ingo
> 
> What the fuck?

While we are at it, there *is* an obvious workaround:
#ifdef ...
	#define L1 <list>
#else
	#define L1
#endif
#ifdef ...
	#define L2 <list>
#else
	#define L2
#endif
	your_macro(...
	L1
	L2
	...)
#undef L1
#undef L2

Ingo, care to explain what the hell had your reply above been about?
Especially since we both apparently agree that code in question did
need fixing, what with your immediate ACK upthread...
--
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

[Index of Archives]     [Newbies FAQ]     [LKML]     [IETF Annouce]     [DCCP]     [Netdev]     [Networking]     [Security]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux SCSI]     [Trinity Fuzzer Tool]

  Powered by Linux