Hi Xavier, On Wed, Aug 14, 2024 at 12:38:53AM GMT, Xavier Del Campo Romero wrote: > I have been overseeing these last emails -
Ahhh, good to know; thanks! :) > thank you very much for your > efforts, Alex! :-) > I did not reply until now because I do not have prior > experience with gcc internals, so my feedback would probably have not > been that useful. Ok. > Those emails from 2020 were in fact discussing two completely different > proposals at once: > > 1. Add _Lengthof + #include <stdlengthof.h> > 2. Allow static qualifier on compound literals Yup. > Whereas proposal #2 made it into C23 (kudos to Jens Gustedt!), and as > you already know by now, proposal #1 received some negative feedback, > suggesting _Typeof/typeof + some macro magic as a pragmatic workaround > instead. The original author of that negative feedback talked to me in private a week ago, and said he likes my proposal. We have no negative feedback anymore. :) > Since the proposal did not get much traction and I would had been > unable to contribute to gcc myself, I just gave up on it. IIRC the > deadline for new proposals closed soon after, anyway. Ok. > But I am glad that someone with proper experience took the initiative. Fun fact: this is my second non-trivial patch to GCC. I wouldn't say I had the proper experience with GCC internals when I started this patch set. But I'm unemployed at the moment, which gives me all the time I need for learning those. :) > I still think the proposal is relevant and has interesting use cases. > > > I have only added lengthof for now, not _Lengthof, as suggested by Jens. > > Depending on feedback, I'll propose the uglified version. > > Probably, all of us know why the uglified version is the usual approach > preferred by the C standard: we do not know how many applications would > break otherwise. Yup. > However, we see that this trend is now changing with C23, so probably > it makes sense to define lengthof directly. Yeah, since Jens is in WG14 and he suggested to follow this trend, maybe we can. If not, it's trivial to change the proposal to use the uglified name plus a macro. Checking <https://codesearch.debian.net>, I see that while several projects have a lengthof() macro, all of them use it with semantics compatible with this keyword, so it shouldn't break too much. Maybe those projects will start receiving diagnostics that they're redefining a standard keyword, but that's not too bad. > As for the parentheses, I personally think lengthof should follow > similar rules compared to sizeof. I think most people agree with this. > > Best regards, Have a lovely night! Alex -- <https://www.alejandro-colomar.es/>
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
