Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] introduce __must_be_array

To:	Jan Beulich <JBeulich@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject:	Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] introduce __must_be_array
From:	Keir Fraser <keir.fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date:	Wed, 20 May 2009 07:10:36 -0700
Cc:	"xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Delivery-date:	Wed, 20 May 2009 07:11:09 -0700
Envelope-to:	www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to:	<C6395C4B.6AC3%keir.fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
List-help:	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=help>
List-id:	Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xensource.com>
List-post:	<mailto:xen-devel@lists.xensource.com>
List-subscribe:	<http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe:	<http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe>
Sender:	xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Thread-index:	AcnZUFtraJho1khMSHuzMR4TKAfePQAA7c6SAAArEGc=
Thread-topic:	[Xen-devel] [PATCH] introduce __must_be_array
User-agent:	Microsoft-Entourage/12.17.0.090302

On 20/05/2009 07:05, "Keir Fraser" <keir.fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>> While I didn't try it, I'm convinced it would.
> 
> I tried it (gcc 4.1.2) and it didn't. And I'm not sure what the theoretical
> warning message would be: Throwing away a non-void value? We do that with
> return values from functions very often.
> 
> I'll change BUILD_BUG_ON() and avoid BUILD_BUG_ON_ZERO(), but revert to your
> approach if some gccs turn out to act differently.

Actually I suppose having ZERO in the name is nice in arithmetic
expressions. So I'll just check in as-is after all.

 -- Keir



_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel

WARNING - OLD ARCHIVES

xen-devel

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] introduce __must_be_array