> So Brad's way allows things that weren't allowed before. But does
> it break anything that works with the do/while construct?
>
> You can take care of attempts to use the return type by voiding it:
>
> #define set_io_port_base(base) \
> (void)(*(unsigned long *)&mips_io_port_base = (base))
>
Maybe I missed this, but is there any reason for the patch, other then
a personal preference of how to do macros that look like functions?
I've seen gcc do strange non-optimal things with functions declared
inlines, but I've never seen it generate bad code WRT to do{}while(0)
constructs.
Unless I'm missing something, this patch looks like a solution in search
of a problem...
-Justin
