Re: [PATCH] sal cleanup

From: Randy.Dunlap <rddunlap_at_osdl.org>
Date: 2004-02-28 08:48:50
On Fri, 27 Feb 2004 20:25:05 +0000 Matthew Wilcox wrote:

| On Fri, Feb 27, 2004 at 11:33:36AM -0800, David Mosberger wrote:
| > Sounds good to me.  The extra blank kills me though... ;-)
| 
| Weeeeeelllllllll.... if you're not allergic to trigraphs,
| 
|         printk(KERN_INFO "SAL %d.%d: %.32s %.32s%sversion %d.%d\n",
|                         sal_rev_major, sal_rev_minor, systab->oem_id,
|                         systab->product_id, systab->product_id[0] ? " " : "",
|                         sal_b_rev_major, sal_b_rev_minor);
| 
| does the trick nicely ;-)
| 
| I'll send a patch when you've come to a decision about how you want the
| SAL revision comparison to look -- it all touches the same area of code.

Where's the trigraph???

A conditional operator ("?:") [section 6.5.15 of C99 spec.]
does not make a 'trigraph'.

Conditional operators are fine IMO, so long as the gcc extension of
"omitted second operand implies repeat the first operand" is not used... :)
This is ugly and prone to mistakes.

--
~Randy
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ia64" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Received on Fri Feb 27 16:56:07 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 2005-08-02 09:20:23 EST