Hi Joseph, Jakub, On Thu, Feb 27, 2025 at 09:51:35PM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Thu, Feb 27, 2025 at 08:44:25PM +0000, Joseph Myers via Gcc wrote: > > On Thu, 27 Feb 2025, Alejandro Colomar via Gcc wrote: > > > > > Can you please confirm if we should add a version of this operator that > > > need not be diagnosed under pedantic mode? If so, I'll propose this > > > > I'm doubtful of the need for a second variant, but in any case the > > starting point should be a patch that implements the standard name and > > semantics (and then if an extension is needed, it might go on top of that, > > whether in the same patch or a separate patch). > > Yeah. In order to avoid the pedantic warning, one can always use > (__extension__ _Countof (x))
Hmmm, okay, then I'll prepare _Countof. Thanks! Have a lovely day! Alex -- <https://www.alejandro-colomar.es/>
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
