On 5/5/22 14:51, Pedro Alves wrote: > On 2022-05-05 13:41, Martin Liška wrote: >> On 5/5/22 14:29, Richard Biener wrote: >>> Can we then use static_assert (...) instead and remove the >>> macro? >> >> Oh yes, we can ;) >> >>> Do we have C compiled code left (I think we might, >>> otherwise we'd not have __cplusplus guards in system.h), >>> in which case the #if should change to #ifdef __cplusplus? >> >> No, there's no such a consumer of the macro. >> >> What about the updated version of the patch? > > static_assert without the second/message parameter requires C++17: > > https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/language/static_assert
Oh, you are correct :) Thanks: /home/marxin/Programming/gcc/gcc/wide-int.h: In static member function ‘static wide_int wi::int_traits<wide_int_storage>::get_binary_result(const T1&, const T2&)’: /home/marxin/Programming/gcc/gcc/wide-int.h:1205:60: warning: ‘static_assert’ without a message only available with ‘-std=c++17’ or ‘-std=gnu++17’ [-Wpedantic] 1205 | || wi::int_traits <T2>::precision_type != FLEXIBLE_PRECISION); > > The macro expanded to always have a message argument. That said, we should go with the original version of the patch. Cheers, Martin
