On Mon, Mar 16, 2020 at 10:32:36AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Sorry for being unclear --- I just meant that we could use do{}
> in StaticAssertStmt for both C and C++. Although now I notice
> that the code is trying to use StaticAssertStmt for StaticAssertExpr,
> which you're right isn't going to do. But I think something like
> this would work and be a bit simpler than what you proposed:
>
> #else
> /* Fallback implementation for C and C++ */
> #define StaticAssertStmt(condition, errmessage) \
> - ((void) sizeof(struct { int static_assert_failure : (condition) ? 1 :
> -1; }))
> + do { struct static_assert_struct { int static_assert_failure :
> (condition) ? 1 : -1; }; } while(0)
> #define StaticAssertExpr(condition, errmessage) \
> - StaticAssertStmt(condition, errmessage)
> + ((void) sizeof(struct { int static_assert_failure : (condition) ? 1 :
> -1; }))
> #define StaticAssertDecl(condition, errmessage) \C++ does not allow defining a struct inside a sizeof() call, so in this case StaticAssertExpr() does not work with the previous extension in C++. StaticAssertStmt() does the work though. One alternatine I can think of for C++ would be something like the following, though C does not like this flavor either: typedef char static_assert_struct[condition ? 1 : -1] -- Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
