From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Mon, 22 Oct 2001 17:41:30 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Mon, 22 Oct 2001 17:40:16 -0400 Received: from pizda.ninka.net ([216.101.162.242]:8577 "EHLO pizda.ninka.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Mon, 22 Oct 2001 17:39:43 -0400 Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2001 14:39:58 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <20011022.143958.78707983.davem@redhat.com> To: bcrl@redhat.com Cc: alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk, hawkes@oss.sgi.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, torvalds@transmeta.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] gcc 3.0.1 warnings about multi-line literals From: "David S. Miller" In-Reply-To: <20011022165157.M23213@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <20011022161527.K23213@redhat.com> <20011022165157.M23213@redhat.com> X-Mailer: Mew version 2.0 on Emacs 21.0 / Mule 5.0 (SAKAKI) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org From: Benjamin LaHaise Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2001 16:51:57 -0400 On Mon, Oct 22, 2001 at 09:45:36PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote: > > Please reject this patch. The gcc folks are wrong in this case. > > Im curious - why do you make that specific claim. The multiline literals are > rather ugly. Which of the following is more readable: /* try atomic lock inline, if that fails, spin out of line */ "\tbtsl $1,%0\n" It's only gross because you decided to make it so, try: "btsl $1,%0\n\t" Which is what I use just about everywhere now and I'm prefectly fine with it. Franks a lot, David S. Miller davem@redhat.com