From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Matthew Wilcox Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] Add C99-style constructor macros for specific-sized integers Date: Sun, 2 Mar 2008 19:38:52 -0700 Message-ID: <20080303023851.GF24386@parisc-linux.org> References: <4a8566f54ff84f498c5c0c0340076c296b1840e6@tazenda.hos.anvin.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4a8566f54ff84f498c5c0c0340076c296b1840e6-TYXNXmPMDn57u0wkx6qpVYSLwOllVvif@public.gmane.org> Sender: linux-arch-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org List-ID: To: "H. Peter Anvin" Cc: Linus Torvalds , Andrew Morton , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Linux Arch Mailing List , David Brownell On Sun, Mar 02, 2008 at 04:09:51PM -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote: > first place. C99 has macros of the form [U]INT#_C() to construct > numbers of an arbitrary size; this patch creates analogous macros for > the kernel s# and u# types. Why put this in asm/types.h instead of, say, linux/types.h? I appreciate you have: > +#define S64_C(x) x ## L > +#define U64_C(x) x ## UL and: > +#define S64_C(x) x ## LL > +#define U64_C(x) x ## ULL but can't we use the latter for all arches? -- Intel are signing my paycheques ... these opinions are still mine "Bill, look, we understand that you're interested in selling us this operating system, but compare it to ours. We can't possibly take such a retrograde step." -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arch" in the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from palinux.external.hp.com ([192.25.206.14]:55563 "EHLO mail.parisc-linux.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755792AbYCCCjN (ORCPT ); Sun, 2 Mar 2008 21:39:13 -0500 Date: Sun, 2 Mar 2008 19:38:52 -0700 From: Matthew Wilcox Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] Add C99-style constructor macros for specific-sized integers Message-ID: <20080303023851.GF24386@parisc-linux.org> References: <4a8566f54ff84f498c5c0c0340076c296b1840e6@tazenda.hos.anvin.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4a8566f54ff84f498c5c0c0340076c296b1840e6@tazenda.hos.anvin.org> Sender: linux-arch-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: "H. Peter Anvin" Cc: Linus Torvalds , Andrew Morton , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Linux Arch Mailing List , David Brownell Message-ID: <20080303023852.T3qGSzkC4PYgBZ4a_sbk-WZEyq0nBoDVOb3szHJt2-g@z> On Sun, Mar 02, 2008 at 04:09:51PM -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote: > first place. C99 has macros of the form [U]INT#_C() to construct > numbers of an arbitrary size; this patch creates analogous macros for > the kernel s# and u# types. Why put this in asm/types.h instead of, say, linux/types.h? I appreciate you have: > +#define S64_C(x) x ## L > +#define U64_C(x) x ## UL and: > +#define S64_C(x) x ## LL > +#define U64_C(x) x ## ULL but can't we use the latter for all arches? -- Intel are signing my paycheques ... these opinions are still mine "Bill, look, we understand that you're interested in selling us this operating system, but compare it to ours. We can't possibly take such a retrograde step."