Sign Up

Sign Up to our social questions and Answers Engine to ask questions, answer people’s questions, and connect with other people.

Have an account? Sign In

Have an account? Sign In Now

Sign In

Login to our social questions & Answers Engine to ask questions answer people’s questions & connect with other people.

Sign Up Here

Forgot Password?

Don't have account, Sign Up Here

Forgot Password

Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link and will create a new password via email.

Have an account? Sign In Now

You must login to ask a question.

Forgot Password?

Need An Account, Sign Up Here

Please briefly explain why you feel this question should be reported.

Please briefly explain why you feel this answer should be reported.

Please briefly explain why you feel this user should be reported.

Sign InSign Up

The Archive Base

The Archive Base Logo The Archive Base Logo

The Archive Base Navigation

  • SEARCH
  • Home
  • About Us
  • Blog
  • Contact Us
Search
Ask A Question

Mobile menu

Close
Ask a Question
  • Home
  • Add group
  • Groups page
  • Feed
  • User Profile
  • Communities
  • Questions
    • New Questions
    • Trending Questions
    • Must read Questions
    • Hot Questions
  • Polls
  • Tags
  • Badges
  • Buy Points
  • Users
  • Help
  • Buy Theme
  • SEARCH
Home/ Questions/Q 7439809
In Process

The Archive Base Latest Questions

Editorial Team
  • 0
Editorial Team
Asked: May 29, 20262026-05-29T10:45:31+00:00 2026-05-29T10:45:31+00:00

I bumped into this strange macro code in /usr/include/linux/kernel.h : /* Force a compilation

  • 0

I bumped into this strange macro code in /usr/include/linux/kernel.h:

/* Force a compilation error if condition is true, but also produce a
   result (of value 0 and type size_t), so the expression can be used
   e.g. in a structure initializer (or where-ever else comma expressions
   aren't permitted). */
#define BUILD_BUG_ON_ZERO(e) (sizeof(struct { int:-!!(e); }))
#define BUILD_BUG_ON_NULL(e) ((void *)sizeof(struct { int:-!!(e); }))

What does :-!! do?


Update: In recent times, the macro has been moved to /usr/include/linux/build_bug.h

  • 1 1 Answer
  • 0 Views
  • 0 Followers
  • 0
Share
  • Facebook
  • Report

Leave an answer
Cancel reply

You must login to add an answer.

Forgot Password?

Need An Account, Sign Up Here

1 Answer

  • Voted
  • Oldest
  • Recent
  • Random
  1. Editorial Team
    Editorial Team
    2026-05-29T10:45:32+00:00Added an answer on May 29, 2026 at 10:45 am

    This is, in effect, a way to check whether the expression e can be evaluated to be 0, and if not, to fail the build.

    The macro is somewhat misnamed; it should be something more like BUILD_BUG_OR_ZERO, rather than ...ON_ZERO. (There have been occasional discussions about whether this is a confusing name.)

    You should read the expression like this:

    sizeof(struct { int: -!!(e); }))
    
    1. (e): Compute expression e.

    2. !!(e): Logically negate twice: 0 if e == 0; otherwise 1.

    3. -!!(e): Numerically negate the expression from step 2: 0 if it was 0; otherwise -1.

    4. struct{int: -!!(0);} --> struct{int: 0;}: If it was zero, then we declare a struct with an anonymous integer bitfield that has width zero. Everything is fine and we proceed as normal.

    5. struct{int: -!!(1);} --> struct{int: -1;}: On the other hand, if it isn’t zero, then it will be some negative number. Declaring any bitfield with negative width is a compilation error.

    So we’ll either wind up with a bitfield that has width 0 in a struct, which is fine, or a bitfield with negative width, which is a compilation error. Then we take sizeof that field, so we get a size_t with the appropriate width (which will be zero in the case where e is zero).


    Some people have asked: Why not just use an assert?

    keithmo’s answer here has a good response:

    These macros implement a compile-time test, while assert() is a run-time test.

    Exactly right. You don’t want to detect problems in your kernel at runtime that could have been caught earlier! It’s a critical piece of the operating system. To whatever extent problems can be detected at compile time, so much the better.

    • 0
    • Reply
    • Share
      Share
      • Share on Facebook
      • Share on Twitter
      • Share on LinkedIn
      • Share on WhatsApp
      • Report

Sidebar

Related Questions

I'm trying to implement AES in c# and I bumped into an error. This
Bumped into some code like this in our code base... which made me worried.
I am trying to middle align an element, But I have bumped into this
I bumped into an additional question that I needed in regards to this: Using
I accidentally bumped into an ad like this: http://monotouch.net/DownloadTrial?ref=so1 . Then I start to
I'm not 100% convinced that this is a good idea, but I bumped into
I just recently bumped into a strange behavior of JSoup library 1.3.3 (quite old,
During usage of NHibernate ... One strange problem that I have bumped into was
I have bumped into this concept using Python distutils2/packaging . I did google it,
I recently bumped into an exception in my code because I was trimming a

Explore

  • Home
  • Add group
  • Groups page
  • Communities
  • Questions
    • New Questions
    • Trending Questions
    • Must read Questions
    • Hot Questions
  • Polls
  • Tags
  • Badges
  • Users
  • Help
  • SEARCH

Footer

© 2021 The Archive Base. All Rights Reserved
With Love by The Archive Base

Insert/edit link

Enter the destination URL

Or link to existing content

    No search term specified. Showing recent items. Search or use up and down arrow keys to select an item.