Re: rwlock(9) and mutex(9) definitions
- Reply: Konstantin Belousov : "Re: rwlock(9) and mutex(9) definitions"
- In reply to: Konstantin Belousov : "Re: rwlock(9) and mutex(9) definitions"
- Go to: [ bottom of page ] [ top of archives ] [ this month ]
Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2021 05:24:42 UTC
On Wed, Oct 27, 2021 at 08:11:13AM +0300, Konstantin Belousov wrote: K> > Okay, let's put return aside. This would compile with true K> > functions (e.g. WITNESS), otherwise not: K> > K> > void K> > something(bool clue) K> > { K> > clue ? rw_rlock(lock) : rw_wlock(lock); K> > } K> > K> > And this is correct code per 6.5.15. K> K> So why cannot you write it as K> ... K> if (clue) K> rw_rlock(lock); K> else K> rw_wlock(lock); Of course I can. But manual page rwlock(9) says I can treat them as functions, thus use in conditional operator. My point is that the fact that I can work around this, doesn't justify the problem not being fixed. What is a downside of wrapping them in "__extension__ ({ })"? -- Gleb Smirnoff