Am 12.03.2016 19:43, schrieb Matt Turner: > On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 10:24 AM, walter harms <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> Am 12.03.2016 19:15, schrieb Alan Coopersmith: >>> Cleans up several -Wempty-body warnings from gcc 5.3 >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Alan Coopersmith <[email protected]> >>> --- >>> def.h | 4 ++-- >>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/def.h b/def.h >>> index 1930cde..59670a9 100644 >>> --- a/def.h >>> +++ b/def.h >>> @@ -82,9 +82,9 @@ extern int _debugmask; >>> * 3 show #include SYMBOL >>> * 4-6 unused >>> */ >>> -#define debug(level,arg) { if (_debugmask & (1 << level)) warning arg; } >>> +#define debug(level,arg) do { if (_debugmask & (1 << level)) warning arg; >>> } while(0) >>> #else >>> -#define debug(level,arg) /**/ >>> +#define debug(level,arg) do { /**/ } while (0) >>> #endif /* DEBUG */ >>> >>> typedef unsigned char boolean; >> >> >> #define debug(level,arg) while(0) >> >> should be sufficient (not tested) > > Maybe, but that sure looks strange to my eye, while the do { ... } > while(0) pattern is well recognized.
for me other way around :) never mind, both are a noop, someone could propose this as C extension ,) re, wh _______________________________________________ [email protected]: X.Org development Archives: http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel Info: https://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-devel
