On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 02:18:54PM -0800, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 11:00:37PM +0100, Luc Van Oostenryck wrote:
> >
> > 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.
Yes. The second option is just because for GCC's attribute syntax
both should be equivalent. So, I'll will implement the first, but
the second only if there is a strong demand for it in the name
of compleness.
-- Luc
--
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
