From: "Gleb O. Raiko" <raiko@niisi.msk.ru>
To: "Kevin D. Kissell" <kevink@mips.com>
Cc: Daniel Jacobowitz <dan@debian.org>,
Justin Carlson <justinca@cs.cmu.edu>,
linux-mips@oss.sgi.com
Subject: Re: Function pointers and #defines
Date: Fri, 31 May 2002 13:15:22 +0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <3CF73F2A.BA1C747E@niisi.msk.ru> (raw)
In-Reply-To: 023001c2081f$95a397d0$10eca8c0@grendel
"Kevin D. Kissell" wrote:
>
> From: "Daniel Jacobowitz" <dan@debian.org>
> > On Thu, May 30, 2002 at 12:32:47PM -0700, Justin Carlson wrote:
> > > A fair number of places in the headers, we have stuff like this:
> > >
> > > void (*_some_fn)(int arg1, int arg2);
> > > #define some_fn(arg1, arg2) _some_fn(arg1, arg2)
> > >
> > > Why do we do this, as opposed to:
> > >
> > > void (*some_fn)(int arg1, int arg2);
> > >
> > > Both syntaxes result in being able to say
> > >
> > > some_fn(1, 2);
> > >
> > > but the latter is both clearer and shorter. Is there some deep,
> > > mystical C reason that we use the former, or did someone do it that way
> > > a long time ago and no one has changed it?
> >
> > At a guess, this prevents taking the address of the function
> > unintentionally...
>
> More likely, some ancient early version of the code was
> written with a single global function, some_fn(), and it
> was easier to override it with a pointer indirection in
> the header than to hunt down and change all invocations.
> Sometimes that's good software engineering. Sometimes
> it's just laziness...
>
> Kevin K.
Just remove the declaration, compile, and look at the code generated.
So, #define is just a safety belt.
Regards,
Gleb.
prev parent reply other threads:[~2002-05-31 9:13 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2002-05-30 19:32 Function pointers and #defines Justin Carlson
2002-05-30 19:50 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2002-05-30 19:58 ` Justin Carlson
2002-05-30 21:18 ` Kevin D. Kissell
2002-05-30 21:18 ` Kevin D. Kissell
2002-05-31 9:15 ` Gleb O. Raiko [this message]
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=3CF73F2A.BA1C747E@niisi.msk.ru \
--to=raiko@niisi.msk.ru \
--cc=dan@debian.org \
--cc=justinca@cs.cmu.edu \
--cc=kevink@mips.com \
--cc=linux-mips@oss.sgi.com \
/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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox