From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Oleg Nesterov Subject: Re: [PATCH] dissect: use built_in_ident() instead of MK_IDENT() Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2017 13:17:41 +0200 Message-ID: <20170620111740.GB21354@redhat.com> References: <20170619211454.45244-1-luc.vanoostenryck@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:60166 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750985AbdFTLRn (ORCPT ); Tue, 20 Jun 2017 07:17:43 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20170619211454.45244-1-luc.vanoostenryck@gmail.com> Sender: linux-sparse-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-sparse@vger.kernel.org To: Luc Van Oostenryck Cc: linux-sparse@vger.kernel.org, Chris Li On 06/19, Luc Van Oostenryck wrote: > > The motivation for this patch was to allow sparse to be > compiled with clang which doesn't like what is done > on VLAs in the MK_IDENT() macro. could you spell please? I don't understand why clang can't compile this code and I am just curious. > But also, I can't see any justification for not using the > real thing to create identifiers: built_in_ident(). Simply because MK_IDENT() is faster and simpler to use. > CC: Oleg Nesterov > Signed-off-by: Luc Van Oostenryck > --- > dissect.h | 13 ------------- > test-dissect.c | 6 +++--- iirc there should be another MK_IDENT user in dissect.c? Oleg.