Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932874AbXAACk3 (ORCPT ); Sun, 31 Dec 2006 21:40:29 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932878AbXAACk3 (ORCPT ); Sun, 31 Dec 2006 21:40:29 -0500 Received: from gate.crashing.org ([63.228.1.57]:48410 "EHLO gate.crashing.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932874AbXAACk2 (ORCPT ); Sun, 31 Dec 2006 21:40:28 -0500 In-Reply-To: References: <20061231194501.GE3730@rhun.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v623) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Message-Id: <66cc662565c489fa9e604073ced64889@kernel.crashing.org> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Muli Ben-Yehuda , Randy Dunlap , Linux kernel mailing list , trivial@kernel.org From: Segher Boessenkool Subject: Re: [PATCH] Documentation: Explain a second alternative for multi-line macros. Date: Mon, 1 Jan 2007 03:40:19 +0100 To: "Robert P. J. Day" X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.623) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 767 Lines: 22 >> In this case, the second form >> should be used when the macro needs to return a value (and you can't >> use an inline function for whatever reason), whereas the first form >> should be used at all other times. > > that's a fair point, although it's certainly not the coding style > that's in play now. for example, > > #define setcc(cc) ({ \ > partial_status &= ~(SW_C0|SW_C1|SW_C2|SW_C3); \ > partial_status |= (cc) & (SW_C0|SW_C1|SW_C2|SW_C3); }) This _does_ return a value though, bad example. Segher - 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/