Re: beware of dead string constants

From: Jeff Garzik (jgarzik@mandrakesoft.com)
Date: Thu Nov 23 2000 - 18:39:25 EST

Next message: Rogier Wolff: "Re: [NEW DRIVER] firestream"
Previous message: Rogier Wolff: "Re: PROBLEM: Cruft mounting option incorrect in ISOFS code"
In reply to: Bernd Eckenfels: "Re: beware of dead string constants"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

Bernd Eckenfels wrote:
>
> In article <14874.25691.629724.306563@wire.cadcamlab.org> you wrote:
> > This is mostly a heads-up to say that in this regard gcc is not ready
> > for prime time, so we really can't get away with using if() as an ifdef
> > yet, at least not without penalty.
>
> Humm.. whats the Advantage of this?

Advantage of what?

If you mean preferring 'if ()' over 'ifdef'... Linus. :) And I agree
with him: code looks -much- more clean without ifdefs. And the
compiler should be smart enough to completely eliminate code inside an
'if (0)' code block.

Jeff

-- 
Jeff Garzik             |
Building 1024           | The chief enemy of creativity is "good" sense
MandrakeSoft            |          -- Picasso
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Next message: Rogier Wolff: "Re: [NEW DRIVER] firestream"
Previous message: Rogier Wolff: "Re: PROBLEM: Cruft mounting option incorrect in ISOFS code"
In reply to: Bernd Eckenfels: "Re: beware of dead string constants"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Nov 23 2000 - 21:00:27 EST