Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
quoted text
> Andi Kleen wrote:
>> The whole idea was pretty bad. Ifdefs are not ugly because the syntax
>> looks ugly, but because it's a semantically ugly construct with bad
>> maintainability impact.
>>
>> Trying to put syntactical sugar around that is a doomed exercise. It
>> will be still ugly, no matter what you do.
> 
> Not true.  Using C rather than CPP to control the compilation of config
> options has the big win that all code paths are still visible to the
> compiler. 

A small win. Still lots of other problems, including testing.

 In some cases that's not what you want, but it often is, and
quoted text
> it would avoid some degree if inadvertent breakage of options.  It can
> also be syntactically a lot more pleasant.

Well it's still an unnecessary different code path and making
it look nicer is just an excuse from properly cleaning it up.

-Andi

--
unsubscribe notice
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/