Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 06 Jul 2006 08:47:55 +0200 | From | "Giacomo A. Catenazzi" <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] genirq: ARM dyntick cleanup |
| |
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 - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |