From: Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>
To: Jim Cromie <jim.cromie@gmail.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [00/02] add BUILD_BUG_DECL assertion (for 3.4??)
Date: Sun, 08 Apr 2012 19:37:58 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1333939078.2508.19.camel@joe2Laptop> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAJfuBxz2fD2KDxpg5gZfGW4bFvuviTG709Aev0=p-ojuzRNpCQ@mail.gmail.com>
On Sun, 2012-04-08 at 17:59 -0600, Jim Cromie wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 8, 2012 at 4:52 PM, Joe Perches <joe@perches.com> wrote:
> > On Sun, 2012-04-08 at 16:38 -0600, Jim Cromie wrote:
> >
> >> this patch (0001) adds new bug.h macro, BUILD_BUG_DECL(name, cond),
> >> which unlike other *BUG* assertions is usable at file scope. Its
> >> primary purpose is to enforce identical sizes of 2 separate arrays,
> >> which but for considerations of packing/padding/section, would be
> >> together in a struct.
> >>
> >> const char const *names[] = { "bart", "lisa", "homer", "marge" };
> >> int a[] = {1,2,3,4};
> >> int b[] = {1,2,3,5};
> >> long d[] = {1,2};
> >>
> >> BUILD_BUG_DECL(foo, ARRAY_SIZE(a) != ARRAY_SIZE(b));
> >> BUILD_BUG_DECL(buz, sizeof(a) != sizeof(b)); // good
> >> BUILD_BUG_DECL(a, sizeof(a) != sizeof(d)); // ok on x32, error x64
> >> BUILD_BUG_DECL(b, ARRAY_SIZE(a) != ARRAY_SIZE(names)); // good
> >>
> >> macro expands as:
> >> static __attribute__ ((__section__(".init.data"))) struct {
> >> int BUILD_BUG_DECL_buz[1 - 2*!!(sizeof(a) != sizeof(b))];
> >> } BUILD_BUG_DECL_buz[0] __attribute__((unused));
> >>
> >
> > If possible, it might be better to wrap the
> > declarations themselves in a macro that ensures
> > the sizes are the same.
> >
> > Something like:
> >
> > declare_same_size_arrays(
> > typeof array1[] = {...},
> > typeof array2[] = {...}
> > );
> >
> >
>
> Unless Im mis-reading you, this has a couple disadvantages:
>
> - bigger patches where its added.
> granted these are mostly whitespace, but theyre less trivial to inspect.
Not a problem in my view, it moves the
related declarations closer together.
> - not useful for array definitions which are not contiguous
> granted thats a minority case, and the definitions could often be moved,
> but not always.
Discontiguous array definitions must be ugly.
> Do you see advantages other than stylistic ones ?
Not really.
Contiguous declarations.
No need for other markings.
Seems useful enough.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-04-09 2:38 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-04-08 22:38 Jim Cromie
2012-04-08 22:38 ` [PATCH 1/2] bug.h: add BUILD_BUG_DECL, usable at file scope Jim Cromie
2012-04-08 22:38 ` =?y?q?=5BPATCH=202/2=5D=20bug=2Eh=3A=20add=20test/demo=20module?= Jim Cromie
2012-04-08 22:52 ` [00/02] add BUILD_BUG_DECL assertion (for 3.4??) Joe Perches
2012-04-08 23:59 ` Jim Cromie
2012-04-09 2:37 ` Joe Perches [this message]
2012-04-09 19:52 ` Jim Cromie
2012-04-09 20:08 ` Joe Perches
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1333939078.2508.19.camel@joe2Laptop \
--to=joe@perches.com \
--cc=jim.cromie@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®