Re: [PATCH] Remove conditional STATIC_ASSERT.
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, 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. > > > > OK, but for C uses it should still be different so my suggestion > > to change to #ifdef __cplusplus remains. OTOH then the change > > is somewhat pointless. > > Sure, so something like this? Works for me. Richard. > Thanks, > Martin > > > > >> What about the updated version of the patch? > >> > >> Cheers, > >> Martin
Re: [PATCH] Remove conditional STATIC_ASSERT.
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,
>>> 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.
>
> OK, but for C uses it should still be different so my suggestion
> to change to #ifdef __cplusplus remains. OTOH then the change
> is somewhat pointless.
Sure, so something like this?
Thanks,
Martin
>
>> What about the updated version of the patch?
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Martin
From 100b7a3de69605ab7e80680e6a6e651e31366bc5 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: =?UTF-8?q?Martin=20Li=C5=A1ka?=
Date: Thu, 5 May 2022 14:18:58 +0200
Subject: [PATCH] Simplify STATIC_ASSERT macro.
For C++, use always __static_assert and for C, use the negative array
index.
gcc/ChangeLog:
* basic-block.h (STATIC_ASSERT): Use normal STATIC_ASSERT.
* system.h (STATIC_ASSERT): Define as static_assert for C++
and fallback to array index in C.
---
gcc/basic-block.h | 5 +
gcc/system.h | 3 +--
2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
diff --git a/gcc/basic-block.h b/gcc/basic-block.h
index e3fff1f6975..21a9b24dbf9 100644
--- a/gcc/basic-block.h
+++ b/gcc/basic-block.h
@@ -158,10 +158,7 @@ struct GTY((chain_next ("%h.next_bb"), chain_prev ("%h.prev_bb"))) basic_block_d
/* This ensures that struct gimple_bb_info is smaller than
struct rtl_bb_info, so that inlining the former into basic_block_def
is the better choice. */
-typedef int __assert_gimple_bb_smaller_rtl_bb
- [(int) sizeof (struct rtl_bb_info)
- - (int) sizeof (struct gimple_bb_info)];
-
+STATIC_ASSERT (sizeof (rtl_bb_info) >= sizeof (gimple_bb_info));
#define BB_FREQ_MAX 1
diff --git a/gcc/system.h b/gcc/system.h
index 1121af485a4..1c783c5331d 100644
--- a/gcc/system.h
+++ b/gcc/system.h
@@ -835,8 +835,7 @@ extern void fancy_abort (const char *, int, const char *)
#define STATIC_CONSTANT_P(X) (false && (X))
#endif
-/* static_assert (COND, MESSAGE) is available in C++11 onwards. */
-#if __cplusplus >= 201103L
+#ifdef __cplusplus
#define STATIC_ASSERT(X) \
static_assert ((X), #X)
#else
--
2.36.0
Re: [PATCH] Remove conditional STATIC_ASSERT.
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 system.h), > > in which case the #if should change to #ifdef __cplusplus? > > No, there's no such a consumer of the macro. OK, but for C uses it should still be different so my suggestion to change to #ifdef __cplusplus remains. OTOH then the change is somewhat pointless. > What about the updated version of the patch? > > Cheers, > Martin
Re: [PATCH] Remove conditional STATIC_ASSERT.
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::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 ::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
Re: [PATCH] Remove conditional STATIC_ASSERT.
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 The macro expanded to always have a message argument.
Re: [PATCH] Remove conditional STATIC_ASSERT.
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?
Cheers,
MartinFrom a610603daddd45de3a6a218006ffa6d1f8855e1c Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Martin Liska
Date: Wed, 4 May 2022 21:17:54 +0200
Subject: [PATCH] Start using static_assert.
As we require a c++11 compliant compiler, static_assert is always
available.
gcc/ChangeLog:
* system.h (STATIC_ASSERT): Remove.
* basic-block.h (STATIC_ASSERT): Use normal static_assert.
gcc/ChangeLog:
* basic-block.h (static_assert): Use static_assert directly.
* bitmap.h (Traits>::base_bitmap_view): Likewise.
* common/config/i386/i386-common.cc (STATIC_ASSERT): Likewise.
(static_assert): Likewise.
* config/aarch64/aarch64-sve-builtins-shapes.cc (struct binary_imm_narrowb_base): Likewise.
(struct binary_imm_narrowt_base): Likewise.
(struct unary_narrowb_base): Likewise.
(struct unary_narrowt_base): Likewise.
* config/i386/i386-builtins.cc (BDESC_VERIFYS): Likewise.
* config/i386/i386-options.cc (STATIC_ASSERT): Likewise.
(static_assert): Likewise.
* config/i386/i386.h (STATIC_ASSERT): Likewise.
(static_assert): Likewise.
* dumpfile.cc (make_item_for_dump_dec): Likewise.
* expmed.cc (make_tree): Likewise.
* input.h (STATIC_ASSERT): Likewise.
(static_assert): Likewise.
* ira-build.cc (ira_conflict_vector_profitable_p): Likewise.
* lto-streamer.h (STATIC_ASSERT): Likewise.
(static_assert): Likewise.
* lto-wrapper.cc: Likewise.
* poly-int.h (C>::poly_int): Likewise.
(maybe_eq): Likewise.
(print_dec): Likewise.
* profile-count.cc (profile_count::to_frequency): Likewise.
* rtl.h (subreg_shape::unique_id): Likewise.
* system.h (STATIC_ASSERT): Likewise.
* tree.h (TYPE_VECTOR_SUBPARTS): Likewise.
(SET_TYPE_VECTOR_SUBPARTS): Likewise.
* wide-int.h (wide_int_storage::wide_int_storage): Likewise.
(wide_int_storage>::get_binary_result): Likewise.
(N>::set_len): Likewise.
(wi::mask): Likewise.
(wi::shifted_mask): Likewise.
gcc/c-family/ChangeLog:
* c-omp.cc (c_omp_split_clauses): Use static_assert directly.
gcc/cp/ChangeLog:
* cp-tree.h (STATIC_ASSERT): Use static_assert directly.
gcc/fortran/ChangeLog:
* openmp.cc (resolve_omp_clauses): Use static_assert directly.
---
gcc/basic-block.h | 5 +
gcc/bitmap.h | 2 +-
gcc/c-family/c-omp.cc | 2 +-
gcc/common/config/i386/i386-common.cc | 2 +-
.../aarch64/aarch64-sve-builtins-shapes.cc | 8
gcc/config/i386/i386-builtins.cc | 2 +-
gcc/config/i386/i386-options.cc| 2 +-
gcc/config/i386/i386.h | 2 +-
gcc/cp/cp-tree.h | 2 +-
gcc/dumpfile.cc| 2 +-
gcc/expmed.cc | 2 +-
gcc/fortran/openmp.cc | 2 +-
gcc/input.h| 2 +-
gcc/ira-build.cc | 2 +-
gcc/lto-streamer.h | 2 +-
gcc/lto-wrapper.cc | 2 +-
gcc/poly-int.h | 10 +-
gcc/profile-count.cc | 2 +-
gcc/rtl.h | 6 +++---
gcc/system.h | 9 -
gcc/tree.h | 4 ++--
gcc/wide-int.h | 18 +-
22 files changed, 39 insertions(+), 51 deletions(-)
diff --git a/gcc/basic-block.h b/gcc/basic-block.h
index e3fff1f6975..fe81b6d90cc 100644
--- a/gcc/basic-block.h
+++ b/gcc/basic-block.h
@@ -158,10 +158,7 @@ struct GTY((chain_next ("%h.next_bb"), chain_prev ("%h.prev_bb"))) basic_block_d
/* This ensures that struct gimple_bb_info is smaller than
struct rtl_bb_info, so that inlining the former into basic_block_def
is the better choice. */
-typedef int __assert_gimple_bb_smaller_rtl_bb
- [(int) sizeof (struct rtl_bb_info)
- - (int) sizeof (struct gimple_bb_info)];
-
+static_assert (sizeof (rtl_bb_info) >= sizeof (gimple_bb_info));
#define BB_FREQ_MAX 1
diff --git a/gcc/bitmap.h b/gcc/bitmap.h
index e7bf67a5474..3c61c6dcfb7 100644
--- a/gcc/bitmap.h
+++ b/gcc/bitmap.h
@@ -1005,7 +1005,7 @@ base_bitmap_view::base_bitmap_view (const T ,
/* The code currently assumes that each element of ARRAY corresponds
to exactly one bitmap_element. */
const size_t array_element_bits = CHAR_BIT * sizeof (array_element_type);
- STATIC_ASSERT (BITMAP_ELEMENT_ALL_BITS % array_element_bits == 0);
+ static_assert (BITMAP_ELEMENT_ALL_BITS %
Re: [PATCH] Remove conditional STATIC_ASSERT.
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 (...) instead and remove the
macro? 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?
Thanks,
Richard.
> Thanks,
> Martin
>
> gcc/ChangeLog:
>
> * basic-block.h (STATIC_ASSERT): Use normal STATIC_ASSERT.
> * system.h (STATIC_ASSERT): Define always as static_assert.
> ---
> gcc/basic-block.h | 5 +
> gcc/system.h | 9 +
> 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/gcc/basic-block.h b/gcc/basic-block.h
> index e3fff1f6975..21a9b24dbf9 100644
> --- a/gcc/basic-block.h
> +++ b/gcc/basic-block.h
> @@ -158,10 +158,7 @@ struct GTY((chain_next ("%h.next_bb"), chain_prev
> ("%h.prev_bb"))) basic_block_d
> /* This ensures that struct gimple_bb_info is smaller than
> struct rtl_bb_info, so that inlining the former into basic_block_def
> is the better choice. */
> -typedef int __assert_gimple_bb_smaller_rtl_bb
> - [(int) sizeof (struct rtl_bb_info)
> - - (int) sizeof (struct gimple_bb_info)];
> -
> +STATIC_ASSERT (sizeof (rtl_bb_info) >= sizeof (gimple_bb_info));
>
> #define BB_FREQ_MAX 1
>
> diff --git a/gcc/system.h b/gcc/system.h
> index 1688b763ef5..48145951337 100644
> --- a/gcc/system.h
> +++ b/gcc/system.h
> @@ -801,14 +801,7 @@ extern void fancy_abort (const char *, int, const char *)
>
> #define STATIC_CONSTANT_P(X) (__builtin_constant_p (X) && (X))
>
> -/* static_assert (COND, MESSAGE) is available in C++11 onwards. */
> -#if __cplusplus >= 201103L
> -#define STATIC_ASSERT(X) \
> - static_assert ((X), #X)
> -#else
> -#define STATIC_ASSERT(X) \
> - typedef int assertion1[(X) ? 1 : -1] ATTRIBUTE_UNUSED
> -#endif
> +#define STATIC_ASSERT(X) static_assert ((X), #X)
>
> /* Provide a fake boolean type. We make no attempt to use the
> C99 _Bool, as it may not be available in the bootstrap compiler,
> --
> 2.36.0
>
[PATCH] Remove conditional STATIC_ASSERT.
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 STATIC_ASSERT.
* system.h (STATIC_ASSERT): Define always as static_assert.
---
gcc/basic-block.h | 5 +
gcc/system.h | 9 +
2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/gcc/basic-block.h b/gcc/basic-block.h
index e3fff1f6975..21a9b24dbf9 100644
--- a/gcc/basic-block.h
+++ b/gcc/basic-block.h
@@ -158,10 +158,7 @@ struct GTY((chain_next ("%h.next_bb"), chain_prev
("%h.prev_bb"))) basic_block_d
/* This ensures that struct gimple_bb_info is smaller than
struct rtl_bb_info, so that inlining the former into basic_block_def
is the better choice. */
-typedef int __assert_gimple_bb_smaller_rtl_bb
- [(int) sizeof (struct rtl_bb_info)
- - (int) sizeof (struct gimple_bb_info)];
-
+STATIC_ASSERT (sizeof (rtl_bb_info) >= sizeof (gimple_bb_info));
#define BB_FREQ_MAX 1
diff --git a/gcc/system.h b/gcc/system.h
index 1688b763ef5..48145951337 100644
--- a/gcc/system.h
+++ b/gcc/system.h
@@ -801,14 +801,7 @@ extern void fancy_abort (const char *, int, const char *)
#define STATIC_CONSTANT_P(X) (__builtin_constant_p (X) && (X))
-/* static_assert (COND, MESSAGE) is available in C++11 onwards. */
-#if __cplusplus >= 201103L
-#define STATIC_ASSERT(X) \
- static_assert ((X), #X)
-#else
-#define STATIC_ASSERT(X) \
- typedef int assertion1[(X) ? 1 : -1] ATTRIBUTE_UNUSED
-#endif
+#define STATIC_ASSERT(X) static_assert ((X), #X)
/* Provide a fake boolean type. We make no attempt to use the
C99 _Bool, as it may not be available in the bootstrap compiler,
--
2.36.0
