On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 11:00:37PM +0100, Luc Van Oostenryck wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 09:20:45AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 9:02 AM, Luc Van Oostenryck
> > <luc.vanoostenryck@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 08:09:39AM -0800, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > >> typedef __attribute__((bitwise)) enum {
> > >> FOO,
> > >> BAR,
> > >> } my_t;
> > >>
>
> One detail about the syntax: my understanding of the attribute
> syntax is that in:
> typedef __bitwise enum foobar { FOO, BAR, } my_t;
> which is essentially the same as:
> enum foobar { FOO, BAR, };
> typedef __bitwise enum foobar my_t;
> the attribute relate to the typedef/my_t and not to the enum type.
Yes, I was worrying about that a little myself.
> It doesn't matter much later, when my_t is used, but it matters
> for the initializers, for example in:
> > >> typedef __attribute__((bitwise)) enum {
> > >> FOO = 1,
> > >> BAR = 2,
> > >> BAZ = 4,
> > >> QUUX = 8,
> > >> WIBBLE = 0x10,
>
> So, I propose that what we should aim for is to support:
> enum __bitwise foobar { FOO, BAR, };
> and, maybe:
> enum foobar { FOO, BAR, } __bitwise;
> Both are equivalent following GGC's attribute's syntax but in
> this case, I think the first is far better (and is easier).
I like your first option better than your second. From my point of view,
it's just swapping two words around:
typedef __bitwise enum {
to
typedef enum __bitwise {
(I understand from a syntactic analysis point of view, it has a completely
different meaning ;-)
--
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
