| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Extend the set of "__attribute__" shortcut macros, and remove identical
(and now superfluous) definitions from a couple of source files.
based on a page at robert love's blog:
http://rlove.org/log/2005102601
extend the set of shortcut macros defined in compiler-gcc.h with the
following:
#define __packed __attribute__((packed))
#define __weak __attribute__((weak))
#define __naked __attribute__((naked))
#define __noreturn __attribute__((noreturn))
#define __pure __attribute__((pure))
#define __aligned(x) __attribute__((aligned(x)))
#define __printf(a,b) __attribute__((format(printf,a,b)))
Once these are in place, it's up to subsystem maintainers to decide if they
want to take advantage of them. there is already a strong precedent for
using shortcuts like this in the source tree.
The ones that might give people pause are "__aligned" and "__printf", but
shortcuts for both of those are already in use, and in some ways very
confusingly. note the two very different definitions for a macro named
"ALIGNED":
drivers/net/sgiseeq.c:#define ALIGNED(x) ((((unsigned long)(x)) + 0xf) & ~(0xf))
drivers/scsi/ultrastor.c:#define ALIGNED(x) __attribute__((aligned(x)))
also:
include/acpi/platform/acgcc.h:
#define ACPI_PRINTF_LIKE(c) __attribute__ ((__format__ (__printf__, c, c+1)))
Given the precedent, then, it seems logical to at least standardize on a
consistent set of these macros.
Signed-off-by: Robert P. J. Day <rpjday@mindspring.com>
Acked-by: Ralf Baechle <ralf@linux-mips.org>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
|
