* "(unsigned long)__builtin_return_address(0)", _RET_IP_, CALLER_ADDR0?
@ 2009-04-29 15:46 Robert P. J. Day
0 siblings, 0 replies; only message in thread
From: Robert P. J. Day @ 2009-04-29 15:46 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Linux Kernel Mailing List
as another possibility for standardizing code, is there a standard
for the simplification mentioned in the subject and documented here:
http://www.crashcourse.ca/wiki/index.php/The_style_script#Testing_for_.22.28unsigned_long.29__builtin_return_address.280.29.22_simplification
it's a bit confusing that, even within the kernel/ directory, all
three constructs are used, even sometimes being mixed in the same
source file, which is really more confusing than it has to be.
is there a standard?
rday
--
========================================================================
Robert P. J. Day Waterloo, Ontario, CANADA
Linux Consulting, Training and Annoying Kernel Pedantry.
Web page: http://crashcourse.ca
Linked In: http://www.linkedin.com/in/rpjday
Twitter: http://twitter.com/rpjday
========================================================================
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] only message in thread
only message in thread, other threads:[~2009-04-29 15:48 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: (only message) (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2009-04-29 15:46 "(unsigned long)__builtin_return_address(0)", _RET_IP_, CALLER_ADDR0? 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®