Dirk Behme:
> Just for the record:
>
> The trick is to ensure that the __arch_putx() containing the volatile
> is not the last statement in the GCC statement-expression. So, using
> something like
>
> #define writeb(v,c) ({ __iowmb(); __arch_putb(v,c); v;})
>
> (note the additional 'v;') should result in correct code, too.
Yes, that's good. Also "0" may work, and may be more readable, (or not,
according to who reads it).
> The patches sent by Wolfgang and Alexander using
>
> #define writeb(v,c) do { __iowmb(); __arch_putb(v,c); } while (0)
>
> do the same with a slightly different syntax, so these patches are
> fine, too.
It's not just different syntax, it's different semantics.
The ({...}) trick turns statements into expressions, while the "do
{...} while(0)" does not. I'd better not forbid statements like
while (reg = readb(addr), reg != VALUE) { .... }
or
if (readb(addr) == VALUE) { ... }
or
swtich (readb(addr)) { ... }
While I agree they may in general not be clean, I can forsee
meaningful uses. Moreover, I'd better allow expression-looking macros
to really behave like expressions -- otherwise error messages are quite
hard to understand for the unaquainted.
IMHO, the only reason to use "do {} while(0)" over statemente
expressions is being portable but in u-boot we are gcc-specific
anyways.
/alessandro
_______________________________________________
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
