On Mon, Nov 9, 2020 at 11:57 PM Peter Zijlstra <pet...@infradead.org> wrote: > > Stripping const to delcare another variable is useful though. Sure C has > sharp edges, esp. if you cast stuff, but since when did that stop anyone > ;-) > > The point is, C++ has these very nice template helpers that can strip > qualifiers, I want that too, for much of the same reasons. We might not > have templates :-(, but we've become very creative with our > pre-processor. > > Surely our __unqual_scalar_typeof() cries for a better solution.
Yeah, and those macros bloat the hell out of our compile times, for both compilers. I think it's reasonable to provide variants of typeof() that strip qualifiers. Some questions to flesh out more of a design. Would we want such a feature to strip all qualifiers or just specific individual ones? The more specific variants could be composed, ie. nonconst_typeof(x) y = x + 1; nonvol_typeof(z) w = z + 1; #define nonqual_typeof(v) nonconst_typeof(nonvol_typeof(v)) nonqual_typeof(v) k = v + 1; vs just: nonqual_typeof(v) k = v + 1; When I think of qualifiers, I think of const and volatile. I'm not sure why the first post I'm cc'ed on talks about "segment" qualifiers. Maybe it's in reference to a variable attribute that the kernel defines? Looking at Clang's Qualifier class, I see const, volatile, restrict (ah, right), some Objective-C stuff, and address space (TR18037 is referenced, I haven't looked up what that is) though maybe "segment" pseudo qualifiers the kernel defines expand to address space variable attributes? Maybe stripping all qualifiers is fine since you can add them back in if necessary? const volatile foo; const nonqual_typeof(foo) bar = foo; // strips off both qualifiers, re-adds const to bar -- Thanks, ~Nick Desaulniers
