On Mon, 2011-03-28 at 07:58 -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote: > On 03/28/2011 07:56 AM, richard -rw- weinberger wrote: > >> > >> What the heck is wrong with the idiomatic and non-gcc-extension-using: > >> > >> ((void)0) > >> > >> ? > > > > AFAIK you cannot use it within an if-statement. > > > > OK, fair enough. If people hate the ({0;}) so much, we could replace it with: static inline int _WARN_ON_SMP(void) { return 0; } #define WARN_ON_SMP(x) _WARN_ON_SMP() That would pretty much do the same thing. o Keeps the parameters from being evaluated, as they may not be defined for SMP o Can be used as a standalone statement without gcc complaining o Can be used within an if condition. Geeze, I never expected such a fuss over a simple change ;) -- Steve -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-tip-commits" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html