Re: GCC nested functions?
From: Gabriel Paubert
Date: Wed May 12 2004 - 14:45:03 EST
On Wed, May 12, 2004 at 10:59:24AM -0700, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> I used GCC nested functions in the (not released) bridge sysfs interface for 2.6.6.
> It seemed like a nice way to express the sysfs related interface without doing
> lots of code copying (or worse lots of macros).
> The code in question looks like:
> static ssize_t store_bridge_parm(struct class_device *cd,
> const char *buf, size_t len,
> void (*store)(struct net_bridge *, unsigned long))
> struct net_bridge *br = to_bridge(cd);
> char *endp;
> unsigned long val;
> if (!capable(CAP_NET_ADMIN))
> return -EPERM;
> val = simple_strtoul(buf, &endp, 0);
> if (endp == buf)
> return -EINVAL;
> store(br, val);
> return len;
> static ssize_t store_forward_delay(struct class_device *cd, const char *buf,
> size_t len)
> void store(struct net_bridge *br, unsigned long val)
> unsigned long delay = clock_t_to_jiffies(val);
> br->forward_delay = delay;
> if (br_is_root_bridge(br))
> br->bridge_forward_delay = delay;
> return store_bridge_parm(cd, buf, len, store);
> This works fine for GCC 2.95 and 3.X for i386 and x86_64 architectures, but the ia64
> (cross compiler) pukes with:
> In function `store_forward_delay':
> : undefined reference to `__ia64_trampoline'
> Redoing it as separate functions is easy enough, but the questions are:
> - Are gcc nested functions allowed in the kernel? If not where should
> this restriction be put in Documentation? CodingStyles?
There is some kind of implicit prohibition in Documentation/CodingStyle
(Chapter3: Placing braces):
"Heretic people all over the world have claimed that this inconsistency
is ... well ... inconsistent, but all right-thinking people know that
(a) K&R are _right_ and (b) K&R are right. Besides, functions are
special anyway (you can't nest them in C)."
Maybe the way it is stated is too close so subliminal ;-) But I never found
a real need for them in C.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/