Peter Xu <[email protected]> writes:
> On Wed, Mar 09, 2016 at 08:53:19AM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 09/03/2016 06:08, Peter Xu wrote:
>> > pxdev:bin# gcc -v
>> > Using built-in specs.
>> > COLLECT_GCC=/bin/gcc
>> > COLLECT_LTO_WRAPPER=/usr/libexec/gcc/x86_64-redhat-linux/4.8.5/lto-wrapper
>> > Target: x86_64-redhat-linux
>> > Configured with: ../configure --prefix=/usr --mandir=/usr/share/man
>> > --infodir=/usr/share/info
>> > --with-bugurl=http://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla --enable-bootstrap
>> > --enable-shared --enable-threads=posix --enable-checking=release
>> > --with-system-zlib --enable-__cxa_atexit --disable-libunwind-exceptions
>> > --enable-gnu-unique-object --enable-linker-build-id
>> > --with-linker-hash-style=gnu
>> > --enable-languages=c,c++,objc,obj-c++,java,fortran,ada,go,lto
>> > --enable-plugin --enable-initfini-array --disable-libgcj
>> > --with-isl=/builddir/build/BUILD/gcc-4.8.5-20150702/obj-x86_64-redhat-linux/isl-install
>> >
>> > --with-cloog=/builddir/build/BUILD/gcc-4.8.5-20150702/obj-x86_64-redhat-linux/cloog-install
>> > --enable-gnu-indirect-function --with-tune=generic --with-arch_32=x86-64
>> > --build=x86_64-redhat-linux
>> > Thread model: posix
>> > gcc version 4.8.5 20150623 (Red Hat 4.8.5-4) (GCC)
>> >
>> > Do you know why "might not be inlinable"? Failed to figure it out
>> > myself as mentioned in cover letter..
>>
>> It's just a difference in compiler versions. But ARRAY_SIZE should be
>> enough to fix it.
>
> It's dynamically allocated in stack, can we still use ARRAY_SIZE in
> this case?
ARRAY_SIZE(x) is defined as (sizeof(x) / sizeof((x)[0])). Works when x
is of array type (variable length array is fine). Screws up when x is
of *pointer* type.
C99 6.5.3.4:
The sizeof operator yields the size (in bytes) of its operand, which
may be an expression or the parenthesized name of a type. The size
is determined from the type of the operand. The result is an
integer. If the type of the operand is a variable length array
type, the operand is evaluated; otherwise, the operand is not
evaluated and the result is an integer constant.
[...]
