> On Aug 4, 2015, at 8:18 AM, Hans Petter Selasky wrote:
>
> Wouldn't the argument be the same for queue.3 . Once C-compilers finally
> decide to compile time support queues, we should throw queue.3 aswell?
Sure! Not right away, and not in a way that causes unnecessary churn, but if
there ar
Hans Petter Selasky wrote this message on Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 08:17 +0200:
> On 08/04/15 19:10, John-Mark Gurney wrote:
> > Hans Petter Selasky wrote this message on Tue, Aug 04, 2015 at 12:48 +0200:
> >> My gut feeling is it's good practice to have those wrapper macros
> >> because they isolate t
2015-08-21 8:17 GMT+02:00 Hans Petter Selasky :
> Here is one more argument against using "_Static_assert()":
>
> According to "http://en.cppreference.com/w/c/language/_Static_assert";
> _Static_assert is C11 syntax only, and we compile the kernel using
> "-std=iso9899:1999" according to "conf/kern
On 08/04/15 19:10, John-Mark Gurney wrote:
Hans Petter Selasky wrote this message on Tue, Aug 04, 2015 at 12:48 +0200:
My gut feeling is it's good practice to have those wrapper macros
because they isolate the compiler into a consistent and coherent API.
Except that we now have a consistent an
Hans Petter Selasky wrote this message on Tue, Aug 04, 2015 at 12:48 +0200:
> My gut feeling is it's good practice to have those wrapper macros
> because they isolate the compiler into a consistent and coherent API.
Except that we now have a consistent and coherent API w/
_Static_assert... We e
On Tue, 4 Aug 2015, Ed Schouten wrote:
Hi Bruce,
2015-08-02 7:35 GMT+02:00 Bruce Evans :
This function shouldn't be deprecated. It is a kernel wrapper with a
good name for hiding the implementation detail or not-yet standard
interface _Static_assert().
_Static_assert has been part of the C
2015-08-04 12:48 GMT+02:00 Hans Petter Selasky :
> Once C-compilers finally decide to compile time support queues, we should
> throw queue.3 aswell?
If the API provided by the C standard would be functionally identical
and easy to emulate with older compilers (which is the case for
_Static_assert
On 08/04/15 12:03, Ed Schouten wrote:
Hi Bruce,
2015-08-02 7:35 GMT+02:00 Bruce Evans:
>This function shouldn't be deprecated. It is a kernel wrapper with a
>good name for hiding the implementation detail or not-yet standard
>interface _Static_assert().
_Static_assert has been part of the C s
Hi Bruce,
2015-08-02 7:35 GMT+02:00 Bruce Evans :
> This function shouldn't be deprecated. It is a kernel wrapper with a
> good name for hiding the implementation detail or not-yet standard
> interface _Static_assert().
_Static_assert has been part of the C standard for approximately 4 years now
On Sun, 2 Aug 2015, John-Mark Gurney wrote:
Log:
mark this function as deprecated, and put the warning first, since I
doubt most people will read to the end... Note the use of sys/cdefs.h
for pre-C11 compilers...
This function shouldn't be deprecated. It is a kernel wrapper with a
good na
10 matches
Mail list logo
