On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 10:53 PM, Ben Pfaff wrote:
> I'd rather go with inline here because it will not warn about unused
> variables, whereas I expect that "do {} while (0)" will in at least some
> cases.
>
make sense.
Thanks.
> On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 10:51:11PM -0700, Andy Zhou wrote:
>> Th
Thanks, pushed.
On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 10:53 PM, Ben Pfaff wrote:
> I'd rather go with inline here because it will not warn about unused
> variables, whereas I expect that "do {} while (0)" will in at least some
> cases.
>
> On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 10:51:11PM -0700, Andy Zhou wrote:
>> Thanks Pr
I'd rather go with inline here because it will not warn about unused
variables, whereas I expect that "do {} while (0)" will in at least some
cases.
On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 10:51:11PM -0700, Andy Zhou wrote:
> Thanks Pravin, I will push it soon so that other people won't run into
> build issues.
>
Thanks Pravin, I will push it soon so that other people won't run into
build issues.
I agree with you that do / while will also work for void function
types. It is shorter than inline although inline provides argument
type checking.
Would do{} while (0) work for none void functions? What happens
On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 9:23 PM, Andy Zhou wrote:
> Building OVS tree without DPDK produced the following warning message.
> lib/dpif-netdev.c:1868:5: error: statement with no effect
>
> This error message is complaining the return value of the following
> macro, (0), is not being used.
>
Building OVS tree without DPDK produced the following warning message.
lib/dpif-netdev.c:1868:5: error: statement with no effect
This error message is complaining the return value of the following
macro, (0), is not being used.
#define pmd_thread_setaffinity_cpu(c) (0)
The patch fixe
