Re: [PATCH] Remove conditional STATIC_ASSERT.

2022-05-09 Thread Richard Biener via Gcc-patches
On Mon, May 9, 2022 at 10:46 AM Martin Liška wrote: > > On 5/5/22 15:08, Richard Biener wrote: > > On Thu, May 5, 2022 at 2:41 PM 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,

Re: [PATCH] Remove conditional STATIC_ASSERT.

2022-05-09 Thread Martin Liška
On 5/5/22 15:08, Richard Biener wrote: > On Thu, May 5, 2022 at 2:41 PM 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, >>>

Re: [PATCH] Remove conditional STATIC_ASSERT.

2022-05-05 Thread Richard Biener via Gcc-patches
On Thu, May 5, 2022 at 2:41 PM 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

Re: [PATCH] Remove conditional STATIC_ASSERT.

2022-05-05 Thread Martin Liška
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

Re: [PATCH] Remove conditional STATIC_ASSERT.

2022-05-05 Thread Pedro Alves
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), >>

Re: [PATCH] Remove conditional STATIC_ASSERT.

2022-05-05 Thread Martin Liška
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

Re: [PATCH] Remove conditional STATIC_ASSERT.

2022-05-05 Thread Richard Biener via Gcc-patches
On Thu, May 5, 2022 at 2:20 PM Martin Liška wrote: > > As we require a c++11 compliant compiler, the #if __cplusplus >= 201103L > conditional build is always true. > > Patch can bootstrap on x86_64-linux-gnu and survives regression tests. > > Ready to be installed? Can we then use static_assert

[PATCH] Remove conditional STATIC_ASSERT.

2022-05-05 Thread Martin Liška
As we require a c++11 compliant compiler, the #if __cplusplus >= 201103L conditional build is always true. Patch can bootstrap on x86_64-linux-gnu and survives regression tests. Ready to be installed? Thanks, Martin gcc/ChangeLog: * basic-block.h (STATIC_ASSERT): Use normal