Re: Fwd: Question about container_of macro.

On Friday 18 January 2008, Manish Katiyar wrote:
> On Jan 18, 2008 2:44 PM, Laurent Pinchart <[email protected]> 
wrote:
> > On Friday 18 January 2008 05:29, Manish Katiyar wrote:
> > > On Jan 18, 2008 9:45 AM, Manish Katiyar <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > Hi Laurent,
> > > >
> > > > On Jan 18, 2008 5:31 AM, Laurent Pinchart
> > > > <[email protected]>
> >
> > wrote:
> > > > > On Thursday 17 January 2008, Alan Stern wrote:
> > > > > > On Thu, 17 Jan 2008, Manish Katiyar wrote:
> > > > > > > My question is instead of defining container_of as:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > #define container_of(ptr, type, member) ({ \
> > > > > > >                 const typeof( ((type *)0)->member ) *__mptr =
> > > > > > > (ptr); (type *)( (char *)__mptr - offsetof(type,member) );})
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Why won't this simply work :
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > #define container_of(ptr, type, member) ({ \
> > > > > > >                         (type *)( (char *)(ptr) -
> > > > > > > offsetof(type,member) );})
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Indeed, or even this:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > #define container_of(ptr, type, member) \
> > > > > >                       ((type *) ((char *)(ptr) -
> > > > > > offsetof(type,member)))
> > > > >
> > > > > If I'm not mistaken, that's because
> > > > >
> > > > > const typeof( ((type *)0)->member ) *__mptr = (ptr);
> > > > >
> > > > > will warn (or maybe even bail out ?) if ptr is not a pointer to a
> > > > > variable of member's type.
> > > >
> > > > But even if ptr is not a variable of member's type, in the second
> > > > line we are force typecasting it to char * and then subtracting. I
> > > > guess it will not warn. I tried in a simple program and it doesn't
> > > > shout. Below is the program
> >
> > That's why you need
> >
> > const typeof( ((type *)0)->member ) *__mptr = (ptr);
> >
> > in addition to
> >
> > (type *)( (char *)__mptr - offsetof(type,member) );
> >
> > otherwise you'll get no warning.
>
> But again, keeping in mind that this macro is one of frequently used
> macros in kernel code, i am not sure how much it is justified to
> allocate a local variable every time and then removing it without any
> significant purpose. If we are keeping it just to ensure some rare
> warnings, I would say it is an overkill and probably we can get rid of
> it.

The gcc optimiser does a great job and doesn't generate any code for the 
type-checking statement.

Regards,

Laurent Pinchart

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft
Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008.
http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/
_______________________________________________
[email protected]
To unsubscribe, use the last form field at:
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-usb-devel