> > 3. use an unnamed enum, effectively considering the enumerated values as
> > plain
> > integers.
> >This does not violate the Rule.
>
> What do you mean by unname enum?
e.g.
enum {
#include
NUM_PERFCOUNTERS
};
instead of
enum perfcounter {
#include
NUM_PERFCOUNTERS
On Tue, 10 Oct 2023, Nicola Vetrini wrote:
> On 10/10/2023 03:56, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> > On Fri, 6 Oct 2023, Nicola Vetrini wrote:
> > > Given the following macros in and
> > >
> > > #define perfc_incra(x,y)\
> > > ( (y) <= PERFC_LAST_ ##
On 10/10/2023 03:56, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
On Fri, 6 Oct 2023, Nicola Vetrini wrote:
Given the following macros in and
#define perfc_incra(x,y)
\
( (y) <= PERFC_LAST_ ## x - PERFC_ ## x ?
\
++this_cpu(
On Fri, 6 Oct 2023, Nicola Vetrini wrote:
> Given the following macros in and
>
> #define perfc_incra(x,y)\
> ( (y) <= PERFC_LAST_ ## x - PERFC_ ## x ? \
>++this_cpu(perfcounters)[PERFC_ ## x + (y)] : 0 )
>
> a
Given the following macros in and
#define perfc_incra(x,y)
\
( (y) <= PERFC_LAST_ ## x - PERFC_ ## x ?
\
++this_cpu(perfcounters)[PERFC_ ## x + (y)] : 0 )
and the following violation
xen/arch/arm/traps.c:1
