At Fri, 7 Nov 2008 04:30:43 -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Fri, Nov 7, 2008 at 03:22, Takashi Iwai wrote:
At Fri, 7 Nov 2008 03:05:56 -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Fri, Nov 7, 2008 at 03:03, Takashi Iwai wrote:
At Fri, 7 Nov 2008 02:57:40 -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Fri, Nov 7, 2008 at 02:38, Takashi Iwai wrote:
At Fri, 7 Nov 2008 02:29:25 -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote: > it also breaks > valid C code if there were side effects in the (cond) as any other > macro which does not properly utilize every argument exactly once.
BTW, what do you mean this exactly?
any potent statement. such as assignment or pre/post increment/decrement or ...
Well, in that case, such a code itself is buggy :)
i'm not advocating doing this sort of thing, i'm saying that functions/macros should be written correctly so as to not break standard C behavior. a guy developing a codec driver could waste a lot of time because of this sort of thing.
Well, no, it's a clear bug of the driver.
A macro that ignores arguments is normal. Or do you think assert() isn't a part of "standard" C ? :)
we arent talking about assert() here nor are we talking about assert() behavior, but i would say it was a poor decision. the fact that it's called snd_BUG_ON() instead of snd_WARN_ON() is also a bit broken imo. BUG() kills the kernel while WARN() complains, and snd_BUG_ON() is clearly in the latter category.
Right, that's a bit confusing. It came because we had already snd_BUG() macro. I took snd_BUG_ON() from the analogy of snd_BUG().
that said, you could just define snd_BUG_ON() in terms of WARN_ON() all the time:
Hm, this looks a good alternative, too. Though, this was already fixed on my git tree in another way...
Takashi
#ifdef CONFIG_SND_DEBUG # define SND_DEBUG 1 #else # define SND_DEBUG 0 #endif #define snd_BUG() WARN(SND_DEBUG, "BUG?\n") #define snd_BUG_ON(cond) WARN(SND_DEBUG && (cond), "BUG? (%s)\n", __stringify(cond)) -mike