From: "Giacomo A. Catenazzi" <cate@debian.org>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>
Cc: "Randy.Dunlap" <rdunlap@xenotime.net>,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@infradead.org>,
akpm@osdl.org, tglx@linutronix.de, mingo@elte.hu,
rmk+lkml@arm.linux.org.uk, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] genirq: ARM dyntick cleanup
Date: Thu, 06 Jul 2006 08:47:55 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <44ACB21B.9050206@debian.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0607051626380.12404@g5.osdl.org>
Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> On Wed, 5 Jul 2006, Randy.Dunlap wrote:
>> OK, I'll bite. What part of Linus's macro doesn't work.
>
> Heh. This is "C language 101".
>
> The reason we always write
>
> #define empty_statement do { } while (0)
>
> instead of
>
> #define empty_statement /* empty */
>
> is not that
>
> if (x)
> empty_statement;
>
> wouldn't work like Arjan claimed, but because otherwise the empty
> statement won't parse perfectly as a real C statement.
But the classical way of empty statments is "((void) 0)"
See K&R, glibc or SuS, for assert.h
( http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/000095399/basedefs/assert.h.html )
or I miss something?
ciao
cate
prev parent reply other threads:[~2006-07-06 6:48 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 21+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2006-07-03 0:18 [PATCH] genirq: ARM dyntick cleanup Thomas Gleixner
2006-07-03 0:35 ` Andrew Morton
2006-07-03 6:29 ` Thomas Gleixner
2006-07-03 6:57 ` Ingo Molnar
2006-07-04 11:54 ` Christoph Hellwig
2006-07-04 12:22 ` Ingo Molnar
2006-07-05 8:35 ` Russell King
2006-07-08 18:53 ` Christoph Hellwig
2006-07-03 7:41 ` Russell King
2006-07-03 7:55 ` Andrew Morton
2006-07-03 9:03 ` Russell King
2006-07-03 9:12 ` Andrew Morton
2006-07-03 16:56 ` Linus Torvalds
2006-07-03 17:13 ` Linus Torvalds
2006-07-03 17:27 ` Arjan van de Ven
2006-07-05 23:24 ` Randy.Dunlap
2006-07-05 23:35 ` Andrew Morton
2006-07-05 23:50 ` Randy.Dunlap
2006-07-05 23:53 ` Linus Torvalds
2006-07-06 0:02 ` Randy.Dunlap
2006-07-06 6:47 ` Giacomo A. Catenazzi [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=44ACB21B.9050206@debian.org \
--to=cate@debian.org \
--cc=akpm@osdl.org \
--cc=arjan@infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=rdunlap@xenotime.net \
--cc=rmk+lkml@arm.linux.org.uk \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=torvalds@osdl.org \
/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