From owner-svn-src-all@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Nov 14 21:49:40 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: svn-src-all@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 46C0A1065672; Sun, 14 Nov 2010 21:49:40 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from dim@FreeBSD.org) Received: from tensor.andric.com (cl-327.ede-01.nl.sixxs.net [IPv6:2001:7b8:2ff:146::2]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 016458FC16; Sun, 14 Nov 2010 21:49:40 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [IPv6:2001:7b8:3a7:0:20d4:5ad4:8ef9:2ce4] (unknown [IPv6:2001:7b8:3a7:0:20d4:5ad4:8ef9:2ce4]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by tensor.andric.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 258F85C43; Sun, 14 Nov 2010 22:49:39 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <4CE0597A.300@FreeBSD.org> Date: Sun, 14 Nov 2010 22:49:46 +0100 From: Dimitry Andric Organization: The FreeBSD Project User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.2; en-US; rv:1.9.2.13pre) Gecko/20101113 Lanikai/3.1.7pre MIME-Version: 1.0 To: mdf@FreeBSD.org References: <201011142038.oAEKcB9M093130@svn.freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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 X-BeenThere: svn-src-all@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "SVN commit messages for the entire src tree \(except for " user" and " projects" \)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 14 Nov 2010 21:49:40 -0000 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.