* why both "__pure" and "__attribute_pure__"?
@ 2007-05-15 7:59 Robert P. J. Day
0 siblings, 0 replies; only message in thread
From: Robert P. J. Day @ 2007-05-15 7:59 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Linux Kernel Mailing List
is there a reason that compiler-gcc.h defines both:
#define __pure __attribute__((pure))
#define __attribute_pure__ __attribute__((pure))
one would think that the shorter form would be preferable to go along
with the other short forms defined in that header file, but a quick
tree scan shows that the longer form is used exclusively (although
still not in what you'd call overwhelming numbers):
$ grep -rw __attribute_pure__ * | wc -l
17
$ grep -rw __pure * | wc -l
1
is there any reason not to just change those few instances to the
short form?
rday
--
========================================================================
Robert P. J. Day
Linux Consulting, Training and Annoying Kernel Pedantry
Waterloo, Ontario, CANADA
http://fsdev.net/wiki/index.php?title=Main_Page
========================================================================
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] only message in thread
only message in thread, other threads:[~2007-05-15 7:59 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: (only message) (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2007-05-15 7:59 why both "__pure" and "__attribute_pure__"? Robert P. J. Day
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®