AF:
NF:0
PS:10
SRH:1
SFN:
DSR:
MID:<20090522120056.0d425956@ripper.onstor.net>
CFG:
PT:0
S:andy.sharp@onstor.com
RQ:
SSV:mail.onstor.net
NSV:
SSH:
R:<maxim.kozlovsky@onstor.com>,<bfisher@onstor.com>
MAID:1
X-Sylpheed-Privacy-System:
X-Sylpheed-Sign:0
SCF:#mh/Mailbox/sent
X-Sylpheed-End-Special-Headers: 1
Date: Fri, 22 May 2009 12:01:29 -0700
From: Andrew Sharp <andy.sharp@onstor.com>
To: Maxim Kozlovsky <maxim.kozlovsky@onstor.com>
Cc: Bill Fisher <bfisher@onstor.com>
Subject: rewriting the BCALL macro
Message-ID: <20090522120129.68f78b46@ripper.onstor.net>
Organization: Onstor
X-Mailer: Sylpheed-Claws 2.6.0 (GTK+ 2.8.20; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Hi Max,

It looks like I'm going to have to restructure the BCALL macro, because
the compiler refuses to handle a goto into the middle of a statement
definition.  I want to ask you is if there is a gcc option or flag to
tell the compiler to accept this.

problem:

first macro generates a "goto foolable"

BCALL, when used in the "status = BCALL(fooness)" form, generates a

status = ({fooness});

statement, with foolabel inside the fooness.  Gcc 4.1.2 won't do it.
I'm assuming that the old compiler would, but possibly you guys had a
magic option to make it relax.

So I thinking I have to restructure the BCALL macro, making it variable
arguments or something, but any suggestions are welcome.

Thanks,

a
