On 12/13/2012 03:43 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 13.12.12 at 01:29, Daniel Santos<danielfsan...@att.net> wrote:
Wow, it's really easy to miss parallel development on the same issue.
Sorry for my late response to this thread. I started another thread
addressing these issues (as well as a few others) back in September
(https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/9/28/1136). I've finally gotten ACKs from
maintainers with v6 of the patches (here
https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/11/20/621) and I'm just waiting for 3.8-rc1
to re-submit them. I actually submitted these patches back in June as
part of a larger patch set, but broke it apart in September (I had way
to many changes for one patch set)
Since yours is apparently ready to go in, but doesn't use
_Static_assert, I guess I'll wait for it to appear until I re-work
whatever might be left to actually make use of _Static_assert.
Jan
Interesting! They've enabled it by default (I suppose as an extension?)
in every standard (except -pedantic of course). One minor draw-back is
that it appears to enjoy escaping tickmarks in the error message. I've
opened a bug for it (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55678)
But realistically, the "compiletime_assert" macro I wrote in compiler.h
can be renamed to "static_assert", analogous to C11's static_assert from
assert.h (ยง7.2 of C11) and it can expand to the _Static_assert keyword,
when that is available.
Something else that I didn't consider too much before was support for
compiling -O0 or -O1, which will cause many expressions that are
otherwise evaluated as compile-time constants to become non-constant and
result in failed assertions. This isn't anything new however, building
-O0 has been broken for quite some time, but I presume it could help
some development of out of tree modules.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
