From: Inaky Perez-Gonzalez <inaky@linux.intel.com>
To: "Ilpo Järvinen" <ilpo.jarvinen@helsinki.fi>
Cc: Netdev <netdev@vger.kernel.org>, wimax@linuxwimax.org, greg@kroah.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] wimax: fix '#ifdef CONFIG_BUG' layout to avoid warning
Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2009 12:57:25 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <200901071257.27225.inaky@linux.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0901072139001.27541@wrl-59.cs.helsinki.fi>
On Wednesday 07 January 2009, Ilpo Järvinen wrote:
> On Wed, 7 Jan 2009, Inaky Perez-Gonzalez wrote:
> > On Wednesday 07 January 2009, Ilpo Järvinen wrote:
> > > On Tue, 6 Jan 2009, Inaky Perez-Gonzalez wrote:
> > > > Reported by Randy Dunlap:
> > > > > Also, this warning needs to be fixed:
> > > > >
> > > > > linux-next-20090106/net/wimax/id-table.c:133: warning: ISO C90
> > > > > forbids mixed declarations and code
> > > >
> > > > Move the return on #defined(CONFIG_BUG) below the variable
> > > > declarations so it doesn't violate ISO C90.
> > > >
> > > > On wimax_id_table_release() we want to do a debug check if CONFIG_BUG
> > > > is enabled. However, we also want the debug code to be always
> > > > compiled to ensure there is no bitrot.
> > >
> > > I hope this kind of solution won't add some warnings? Besides, this
> > > seems rather strange reasoning as CONFIG_BUG is mostly enabled anyway?
> >
> > Well, it is legal code -- short of 'if (1) return'. It doesn't warn (and
> > it should not).
>
> Obviously, but I was concerned on the other lines than that
> particular one, e.g., gcc might think that wimax_dev is unused
> variable and emit a warning or along those lines...?
Ah, I see -- no, it won't. [disclaimer: not know much about compiler
optimization] In theory, as we were saying, it works just as in a case
where you have
int somevar;
if (1)
return;
somevar = call_some_func();
with 1 being the result of a compile time evaluation. The compiler sees
that somevar is being used, but the code path is never executed, so everything
gets dumped.
If it ever did, it'd be a matter of changing that return to an if (1) return.
It'd look uglier though.
--
Inaky
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-01-07 20:58 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-01-07 7:58 [PATCH 0/3] wimax: Kbuild / rfkill-build fixes Inaky Perez-Gonzalez
2009-01-07 7:58 ` [PATCH 1/3] wimax: fix '#ifdef CONFIG_BUG' layout to avoid warning Inaky Perez-Gonzalez
2009-01-07 10:25 ` Ilpo Järvinen
2009-01-07 17:20 ` Inaky Perez-Gonzalez
2009-01-07 19:42 ` Ilpo Järvinen
2009-01-07 20:57 ` Inaky Perez-Gonzalez [this message]
2009-01-07 7:58 ` [PATCH 2/3] wimax: fix kconfig interactions with rfkill and input layers Inaky Perez-Gonzalez
2009-01-07 7:58 ` [PATCH 3/3] wimax: testing for rfkill support should also test for CONFIG_RFKILL_MODULE Inaky Perez-Gonzalez
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=200901071257.27225.inaky@linux.intel.com \
--to=inaky@linux.intel.com \
--cc=greg@kroah.com \
--cc=ilpo.jarvinen@helsinki.fi \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=wimax@linuxwimax.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.