Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Wed, 17 Apr 2002 15:17:26 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Wed, 17 Apr 2002 15:17:25 -0400 Received: from roc-24-95-199-137.rochester.rr.com ([24.95.199.137]:56562 "EHLO www.kroptech.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Wed, 17 Apr 2002 15:17:23 -0400 Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2002 15:17:18 -0400 From: Adam Kropelin To: "Martin J. Bligh" Cc: Frank Davis , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, davej@suse.de, Brian Gerst Subject: Re: 2.5.8-dj1 : arch/i386/kernel/smpboot.c error Message-ID: <20020417191718.GA8660@www.kroptech.com> In-Reply-To: <20020417123044.GA8833@www.kroptech.com> <2673595977.1019032098@[10.10.2.3]> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Apr 17, 2002 at 08:28:19AM -0700, Martin J. Bligh wrote: > Adam Kropelin wrote: > > Even though clustered_apic_mode is 0, the compiler still complains > > about the second one and the first one doesn't depend on > > clustered_apic_mode at all. > > Hmmm ... not sure why the compiler complains about the second one, > that's very strange ;-) I agree. The cpp ouput clealy shows if ((0) && (numnodes > 1)) { so I'm not sure why there's a problem. > I wonder if we can play the same trick we've played before .... > haven't tested the appended, but maybe it, or something like it > will work without the ifdef's? IMHO, this sort of trickery in the name of improving readability is misguided. To me, anyway, the #ifdef's are much easer to read than magic name-changing macros buried in a header somewhere. --Adam - 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/