On Monday 18 August 2008 03:33:19 Ingo Molnar wrote:
quoted text > * Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
> > Gag me now.
> >
> > Why not just do
> >
> > #define __BBO(c) sizeof(const char[1 - 2*!!(c)])
> > #define __BBONC(c) __BBO(!__builtin_constant_p(c))
> > #define BUILD_BUG_ON_ZERO(c) (__BBO(c) - __BBONC(c))
> > #define BUILD_BUG_ON(c) (void)BUILD_BUG_ON_ZERO(c)
> >
> > and be done with it?
>
> yeah, i first tried a few variants of that (compile-time warnings are
> much better than link time warnings), but none worked when i tested
> various failure modes.
Hey, I thought I was the "undisputed ruler of Ugly-land".
How about this instead:
#define BUILD_BUG_ON(condition) \
do { \
static struct { char arr[1 - 2*!!(condition)]; } x __maybe_unused; \
} while(0)
Cheers,
Rusty.
--
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/
Messages in current thread:
Re: [PATCH] debug: fix BUILD_BUG_ON() for non-constant exp ... , Rusty Russell , (Sun Aug 17, 6:09 pm)