From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Thu, 30 Aug 2001 19:02:34 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Thu, 30 Aug 2001 19:02:25 -0400 Received: from t2.redhat.com ([199.183.24.243]:41719 "EHLO passion.cambridge.redhat.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Thu, 30 Aug 2001 19:02:18 -0400 X-Mailer: exmh version 2.3 01/15/2001 with nmh-1.0.4 From: David Woodhouse X-Accept-Language: en_GB In-Reply-To: <200108302247.f7UMl4f31365@oboe.it.uc3m.es> In-Reply-To: <200108302247.f7UMl4f31365@oboe.it.uc3m.es> To: ptb@it.uc3m.es Cc: "Herbert Rosmanith" , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, dhowells@cambridge.redhat.com Subject: Re: [IDEA+RFC] Possible solution for min()/max() war Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2001 00:02:05 +0100 Message-ID: <12803.999212525@redhat.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org ptb@it.uc3m.es said: > Well, I understand what you mean, but if the linux kernel wants it > and the C spec doesn't forbid it, then it'll either stay that way or > an "official" way will be found of evoking the desired behaviour. In the world I've been living in for the last few years, GCC people don't seem to take that much care to avoid breaking the kernel, especially when the kernel is being gratuitously broken. David's __builtin_ct_assertion() stuff looks like a sane way of getting the desired behaviour without having to sacrifice any chickens, and getting that merged into GCC so that we can start to use it seems like a good idea. > OTOH I now can't get #__LINE__ to expand as I want it where I want > it. Heh. That's magic. -- dwmw2