lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2006]   [Jul]   [6]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2006-07-06 08:51    [W:0.068 / U:0.772 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site