On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 10:02 AM, Alexei Starovoitov
<alexei.starovoitov@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> If the goal is to catch non-scalar users, the following is shorter:
> #define ACCESS_ONCE(x) (((typeof(x))0) + *(volatile typeof(x) *)&(x))
Me likey. It probably works well in practice, although I think
- the "(typeof(x))0)" seems unnecessary and wrong. Why not just "0"?
The typeof is not just longer, but it is incorrect for pointer types
(you can add 0 to a pointer, but you cannot add two pointers together)
- it does mean that the resulting type ends up being upgraded to
"int", for the usual C type reasons.
Note that the "upgraded to 'int'" is true with or without the
"(typeof(x))0". If you add two 'char' values, the addition is still
done in 'int'.
Maybe you *meant* that typeof to fix the second problem, like so:
(typeof(x)) (0 + *(volatile typeof(x) *)&(x))
Hmm? That casts the result of the addition, not the zero.
Linus
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-x86_64" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
