On Sunday, September 30, 2012 10:48:01 PM Tom Lane wrote: > Andres Freund <and...@2ndquadrant.com> writes: > > Perhaps we need to decouple _Static_assert support from compound > > statement support at some point, but we will see. > > Yeah, possibly, but until we have an example of a non-gcc-compatible > compiler that can do something equivalent, it's hard to guess how we > might need to alter the autoconf tests. Anyway the important thing > for now is the external specification of the macros, and I think we're > good on that (modulo any better naming suggestions). I thought msvc supported _Static_assert as well, but after a short search it seems I misremembered and it only supports static_assert from C++11 (which is plausible, because I've worked on a C++11 project which was ported to windows ). I don't know how C and C++ compilation modes are different in msvc.
I really don't understand why C and C++ standard development isn't coordinated more... They seem to come up with annoying incompatibilities all the time. > I'm fairly sure there are already a few cases of Asserts on > compile-time-constant expressions, so I made sure that there was a layer > allowing access to _Static_assert without the type-compatibility code. > I didn't go looking for anything to convert, but I think there's some > in the shared memory initialization code. Definitely a sensible goal. I wasn't really sure how well the idea would be received after I asked before and only heard echoes of my excitement and didn't want to spend too much time on it... Greetings, Andres -- Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
