On Wed, 11 Mar 2015 18:37:32 -0000, Jeff Haran said: > I don't understand the problem here. The caller passes in a condition to be > evaluated in a loop. Many times that condition is quite simple (e.g. a counter > being non-zero). If it was a function the caller would have to pass in a > pointer to a function that does the evaluation, as in: We do pointers to callback functions all the time. We try *really* hard to avoid anonymous lambda functions (which is basically what we have here). The problem here is that there's about 3 zillion ways to screw up the inline version, starting with the compiler optimizing the control variable into a hoisted load outside the loop and causing the test to always fail - note that the macro does *not* use any barriers or volatile or anything like that.
Attachment:
pgpZPxP1fC9k9.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Kernelnewbies mailing list Kernelnewbies@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.kernelnewbies.org/mailman/listinfo/kernelnewbies
