From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Randy.Dunlap" Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2004 21:48:50 +0000 Subject: Re: [PATCH] sal cleanup Message-Id: <20040227134850.5deb0f75.rddunlap@osdl.org> List-Id: References: <20040226213704.GW25779@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <20040226213704.GW25779@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org On Fri, 27 Feb 2004 20:25:05 +0000 Matthew Wilcox wrote: | On Fri, Feb 27, 2004 at 11:33:36AM -0800, David Mosberger wrote: | > Sounds good to me. The extra blank kills me though... ;-) | | Weeeeeelllllllll.... if you're not allergic to trigraphs, | | printk(KERN_INFO "SAL %d.%d: %.32s %.32s%sversion %d.%d\n", | sal_rev_major, sal_rev_minor, systab->oem_id, | systab->product_id, systab->product_id[0] ? " " : "", | sal_b_rev_major, sal_b_rev_minor); | | does the trick nicely ;-) | | I'll send a patch when you've come to a decision about how you want the | SAL revision comparison to look -- it all touches the same area of code. Where's the trigraph??? A conditional operator ("?:") [section 6.5.15 of C99 spec.] does not make a 'trigraph'. Conditional operators are fine IMO, so long as the gcc extension of "omitted second operand implies repeat the first operand" is not used... :) This is ugly and prone to mistakes. -- ~Randy