Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Tue, 31 Jul 2001 11:58:51 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Tue, 31 Jul 2001 11:58:42 -0400 Received: from dnscache.cbr.au.asiaonline.net ([210.215.8.100]:55682 "EHLO dnscache.cbr.au.asiaonline.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Tue, 31 Jul 2001 11:58:34 -0400 Message-ID: <3B66D580.5217B48B@acm.org> Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2001 01:57:52 +1000 From: Gareth Hughes X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.77 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.4.7 i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: 2.4.7 -- GCC-3.0 -- "multiline string literals deprecated" -- PATCH In-Reply-To: <200107311415.f6VEF9oD028247@pincoya.inf.utfsm.cl> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Original-Recipient: rfc822;linux-kernel-outgoing Horst von Brand wrote: > > AFAIU, they are non-standard, and can easily hide bugs (in opening a string > and forgetting to close you are in escence commenting out lines of code) Zack Weinberg, who's post started the thread, gave three main criteria for their removal in http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2001-07/msg00327.html, including: There is only one argument in my mind for keeping them: - It makes it easier to write lengthy chunks of inline assembly. This is certainly true, however, writing a lengthy chunk of inline assembly is almost always a mistake; it interferes with the compiler's ability to do its job. Therefore I do not think there is any compelling need to make that easy. If I ever write inline assembly, then it's for a very good reason. I'd hesitate to call almost all uses of inline assembly a "mistake", particlarly in places like the kernel, or math-intensive ones like 3D graphics. > Right. If you use a compiler, you shouldn't need it much. Better make > other, more important, things easy/more foolproof, even at some cost for > the asm() writer. (Hint: Count the lines of asm in the kernel (an > _extremely_ heavy asm user!) vs the lines of plain C) No argument re: lines of code. However, if I have to write a decent chunk of inline assembly, multiline strings are much nicer IMHO. > Yep, this is a braindead argument. There must have been others (sensible > ones)... See above ;-) > I hope they disallow multiline strings pretty soon. I don't have strong feelings either way. And I sure don't want to have this argument again... -- Gareth - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/