On Thu, Aug 02, 2012 at 11:47:01PM +0200, Sasha Levin wrote:
> On 08/02/2012 10:41 PM, Josh Triplett wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 02, 2012 at 07:54:42PM +0200, Sasha Levin wrote:
> >> /* I've "preprocessed" the DEFINE macro below */
> >> union {
> >> struct hash_table table;
> >> struct {
> >> size_t bits;
> >> struct hlist_head buckets[32];
> >> }
> >> } my_hashtable;
> >
> > That expansion doesn't match the macros. Using the most recent
> > definitions of DEFINE_HASHTABLE and DEFINE_STATIC_HASHTABLE from above,
> > the definition would look something like this:
> >
> > static union {
> > struct hash_table my_hashtable;
> > struct {
> > size_t bits;
> > struct hlist_head buckets[1 << 5];
> > } __my_hashtable;
> > } = { .my_hashtable.bits = 5 };
>
> It's different because I don't think you can do what you did above with
> global variables.
>
> You won't be defining any instances of that anonymous struct, so my_hashtable
> won't exist anywhere.
...how strange. The above syntax ought to work, and many other
compilers document it as legal syntax (and I thought that C1x's
anonymous structs and unions allowed it), but indeed GCC doesn't accept
it.
Fair enough; looks like consolidating the macro implementations won't
actually work.
- Josh Triplett
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
