At Fri, 31 Jan 2020 11:47:01 +0900, Michael Paquier <mich...@paquier.xyz> wrote in > On Tue, Dec 24, 2019 at 02:47:29PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: > > I am still seeing that a couple of points need an extra lookup: > > - Addition of a Decl() in at least one header of the core code. > > I agree with the addition of Decl() definition in a header, and could > not think about something better than one for bufpage.h for the > all-zero check case, so I went with that. Attached is a 0001 which > adds the definition for StaticAssertDecl() for C and C++ for all code > paths. If there are no objections, I would like to commit this > version. There is no fancy refactoring in it, and small progress is > better than no progress. I have also reworked the comments in the > patch, and did some testing on Windows.
As a cross check, it cleanly applied and worked as expected. The fallback definition of StaticAssertDecl for C worked for gcc 8.3. - * Macros to support compile-time assertion checks. + * Macros to support compile-time and declaration assertion checks. All the StaticAssert things check compile-time assertion. I think that the name StaticAssertDecl doesn't mean "declaration assertion", but means "static assertion as a declaration". Is the change needed? - * If the "condition" (a compile-time-constant expression) evaluates to false, - * throw a compile error using the "errmessage" (a string literal). + * If the "condition" (a compile-time-constant or declaration expression) + * evaluates to false, throw a compile error using the "errmessage" (a + * string literal). I'm not sure what the "declaration expression" here means. I think the term generally means "a variable declaration in expressions", something like "r = y * (int x = blah)". In that sense, the parameter for StaticAssertDecl is just a compile-time constant expression. Is it a right rewrite? > > - Perhaps unifying the fallback implementation between C and C++, with > > a closer lookup in particular at StaticAssertStmt() and StaticAssertExpr(). > > Seeing nothing happening on this side. I took a shot at all that, and > I have hacked my way through it with 0002 which is an attempt to unify > the fallback implementation for C and C++. This is not fully baked > yet, and it is perhaps a matter of taste if this makes the code more > readable or not. I think it does, because it reduces the parts > dedicated to assertion definitions from four to three. Anyway, let's > discuss about that. +1 as far as the unification is right. I'm not sure, but at least it worked for gcc 8.3. regards. -- Kyotaro Horiguchi NTT Open Source Software Center
