Date: Sun, 14 Nov 2010 22:49:46 +0100 From: Dimitry Andric <dim@FreeBSD.org> To: mdf@FreeBSD.org Cc: svn-src-head@freebsd.org, svn-src-all@freebsd.org, src-committers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r215317 - in head/sys: kern mips/mips mips/rmi net netgraph netinet netinet/ipfw netinet6 netipsec powerpc/aim powerpc/booke Message-ID: <4CE0597A.300@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <AANLkTiktcBdOaBBEg-Zm_iQkqHaK7Dh_gkoLUWb9mO4D@mail.gmail.com> References: <201011142038.oAEKcB9M093130@svn.freebsd.org> <AANLkTiktcBdOaBBEg-Zm_iQkqHaK7Dh_gkoLUWb9mO4D@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 2010-11-14 22:13, mdf@FreeBSD.org wrote:
> If "static DPCPU_DEFINE" and "STATIC_DPCPU_DEFINE" are the same thing,
> it seems backwards to prefer the macro over the C code. Is there a
> difference?
After a follow-up commit, r215318, they are different. This is because
the macro then inserts __asm__(".globl") statements just before the
actual definition of the variable, which was not possible before.
E.g.:
static __asm__(".globl foo") int bar;
would not compile.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4CE0597A.300>