From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com (Mathieu Desnoyers)
Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2011 18:00:18 -0400
Subject: [ltt-dev] liburcu: likely and unlikely macro collision
In-Reply-To: <CAEoG=qO4XivFb9XAkrefF3boVP9uZZYW2ncRKpKvxm6VpZsmyw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAEoG=qO4XivFb9XAkrefF3boVP9uZZYW2ncRKpKvxm6VpZsmyw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20111101220018.GA19730@Krystal>

Hi,

likely()/unlikely() seems to be amongst the last macros that urcu
defines that don't have urcu-specific prefixes. Thoughts on whether we
should add a prefix such as caa_likely() and caa_unlikely() are welcome.

Thanks,

Mathieu

* Rafael Fernandez (rfernan3 at illinois.edu) wrote:
> Hi Matthieu,
> 
> I am trying to incorporate liburcu in a project I am working with.
> Unfourtunately there are several collisions of the definitions of
> likely and unlikely. Would it be possible for you to add a prefix to
> the macros such that there aren't any collisions? I think it would be
> cleaner/easier for future users to incorporate into existing code
> bases.
> 
> Thank you,
> Rafael
> 
> -- 
> Rafael E. Fern?ndez
> B.S. Computer Science
> University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

-- 
Mathieu Desnoyers
Operating System Efficiency R&D Consultant
EfficiOS Inc.
http://www.efficios.com