On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 10:31:51AM +0100, David Sterba wrote:
> Agreed, but the proposed define is rather cryptic and I was not able to
> understand the meaning on the first glance.
>
> > #define iov_iter_rw(i) ((0 ? (struct iov_iter *)0 : (i))->type & RW_MASK)
>
> This worked for me, does not compile with anything else than
> 'struct iov_iter*' as i:
>
> #define iov_iter_rw(i) ({ \
> struct iov_iter __iter = *(i); \
> (i)->type & RW_MASK; \
> })
>
> The assignment is optimized out.
... and you are getting
a) use of rather lousy gccism when plain C would do
b) double evaluation since you've got it wrong (should've been
__iter.type & RW_MASK, if you do it that way). As it is, if argument has
any side effects, your variant will trigger those twice - even if the
destination of the assignment is never used, the side effects remain.
I agree that it could use /* use ?: for typechecking */, but let's not go into
({...}) land unless we absolutely have to.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dive into the World of Parallel Programming The Go Parallel Website, sponsored
by Intel and developed in partnership with Slashdot Media, is your hub for all
things parallel software development, from weekly thought leadership blogs to
news, videos, case studies, tutorials and more. Take a look and join the
conversation now. http://goparallel.sourceforge.net/
_______________________________________________
Jfs-discussion mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jfs-discussion
