Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932202AbXAIUTc (ORCPT ); Tue, 9 Jan 2007 15:19:32 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932231AbXAIUTc (ORCPT ); Tue, 9 Jan 2007 15:19:32 -0500 Received: from einhorn.in-berlin.de ([192.109.42.8]:35573 "EHLO einhorn.in-berlin.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932202AbXAIUTc (ORCPT ); Tue, 9 Jan 2007 15:19:32 -0500 X-Envelope-From: stefanr@s5r6.in-berlin.de Message-ID: <45A3F8C5.5060409@s5r6.in-berlin.de> Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2007 21:19:17 +0100 From: Stefan Richter User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.8.0.8) Gecko/20061202 SeaMonkey/1.0.6 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "linux-os (Dick Johnson)" CC: "Robert P. J. Day" , Linux kernel mailing list Subject: Re: macros: "do-while" versus "({ })" and a compile-time error References: <45A3D1DF.4020205@s5r6.in-berlin.de> In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 0.94.0.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 760 Lines: 20 linux-os (Dick Johnson) wrote: > On Tue, 9 Jan 2007, Stefan Richter wrote: >> The limitations are certainly highly compiler-specific. > > I don't think so. I referred to the ({ expr; }) in this remark, not to do-while. It's not a valid construct in many flavors of the C language in the first place. Also, occurrences of ({ expr; }) could be expandable to a constant expression but would still not be accepted by gcc's parser outside of functions. -- Stefan Richter -=====-=-=== ---= -=--= http://arcgraph.de/sr/ - 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/