Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756655AbXFXSGR (ORCPT ); Sun, 24 Jun 2007 14:06:17 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752141AbXFXSGF (ORCPT ); Sun, 24 Jun 2007 14:06:05 -0400 Received: from smtp2.linux-foundation.org ([207.189.120.14]:49852 "EHLO smtp2.linux-foundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751505AbXFXSGC (ORCPT ); Sun, 24 Jun 2007 14:06:02 -0400 Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2007 11:04:57 -0700 (PDT) From: Linus Torvalds To: Al Viro cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-sparse@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 16/16] fix handling of integer constant expressions In-Reply-To: <20070624174732.GZ21478@ftp.linux.org.uk> Message-ID: References: <20070624174732.GZ21478@ftp.linux.org.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=us-ascii Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1564 Lines: 41 On Sun, 24 Jun 2007, Al Viro wrote: > > Heh... The first catches are lovely: > struct fxsrAlignAssert { > int _:!(offsetof(struct task_struct, > thread.i387.fxsave) & 15); Ok, that's a bit odd. > as an idiotic way to do BUILD_BUG() and > #define _IOC_TYPECHECK(t) \ > ((sizeof(t) == sizeof(t[1]) && \ > sizeof(t) < (1 << _IOC_SIZEBITS)) ? \ > sizeof(t) : __invalid_size_argument_for_IOC) > poisoning _IOW() et.al., so those who do something like > > static const char *v4l1_ioctls[] = { > [_IOC_NR(VIDIOCGCAP)] = "VIDIOCGCAP", On the other hand, this one really does seem to be "nice". I don't think it's a misfeature to be able to do "obvious compile-time constant optimizations" on initializer indexes. The bitfield size thing in some ways does do the same thing - it's clearly _odd_, but if I had my choice, I'd prefer a language that allows it over one that doesn't. > Objections? The only reason that doesn't break gcc to hell and back is > that gcc has unfixed bugs in that area. It certainly is not a valid C > or even a remotely sane one. I agree that it's obviously not "valid C", but I don't agree that it's not remotely sane. Why not allow that extension? Linus - 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/