Hi Daniel,
2018-08-21 17:11 GMT+09:00 Daniel Santos :
> On 08/19/2018 03:25 PM, Nick Desaulniers wrote:
>> + gbiv who wrote this cool paste (showing alternatives to
>> _Static_assert, which is supported by both compilers in -std=gnu89,
>> but not until gcc 4.6): https://godbolt.org/g/DuLsxu
>>
Hi Daniel,
2018-08-21 17:11 GMT+09:00 Daniel Santos :
> On 08/19/2018 03:25 PM, Nick Desaulniers wrote:
>> + gbiv who wrote this cool paste (showing alternatives to
>> _Static_assert, which is supported by both compilers in -std=gnu89,
>> but not until gcc 4.6): https://godbolt.org/g/DuLsxu
>>
On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 9:15 AM, Masahiro Yamada
wrote:
>> Note that there are a few definitions of BUILD_BUG_ON that still use
>> this negative array size trick. Should that pattern be removed from
>> them as well? See:
>> * arch/x86/boot/boot.h#L33
>> * include/linux/build_bug.h#L66
>> *
On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 9:15 AM, Masahiro Yamada
wrote:
>> Note that there are a few definitions of BUILD_BUG_ON that still use
>> this negative array size trick. Should that pattern be removed from
>> them as well? See:
>> * arch/x86/boot/boot.h#L33
>> * include/linux/build_bug.h#L66
>> *
Hi Nick,
2018-08-20 5:25 GMT+09:00 Nick Desaulniers :
> + gbiv who wrote this cool paste (showing alternatives to
> _Static_assert, which is supported by both compilers in -std=gnu89,
> but not until gcc 4.6): https://godbolt.org/g/DuLsxu
>
> I can't help but think that BUILD_BUG_ON_MSG should
Hi Nick,
2018-08-20 5:25 GMT+09:00 Nick Desaulniers :
> + gbiv who wrote this cool paste (showing alternatives to
> _Static_assert, which is supported by both compilers in -std=gnu89,
> but not until gcc 4.6): https://godbolt.org/g/DuLsxu
>
> I can't help but think that BUILD_BUG_ON_MSG should
On 08/19/2018 03:25 PM, Nick Desaulniers wrote:
> + gbiv who wrote this cool paste (showing alternatives to
> _Static_assert, which is supported by both compilers in -std=gnu89,
> but not until gcc 4.6): https://godbolt.org/g/DuLsxu
>
> I can't help but think that BUILD_BUG_ON_MSG should use
>
On 08/19/2018 03:25 PM, Nick Desaulniers wrote:
> + gbiv who wrote this cool paste (showing alternatives to
> _Static_assert, which is supported by both compilers in -std=gnu89,
> but not until gcc 4.6): https://godbolt.org/g/DuLsxu
>
> I can't help but think that BUILD_BUG_ON_MSG should use
>
On Sun, Aug 19, 2018 at 1:36 PM Nick Desaulniers
wrote:
>
> On Sun, Aug 19, 2018 at 1:28 PM Linus Torvalds
> wrote:
> >
> > Well, it turns out that we effectively stopped supporting gcc < 4.6
> > during this merge window for other reasons, so..
>
> For the whole kernel (or just a particular
On Sun, Aug 19, 2018 at 1:36 PM Nick Desaulniers
wrote:
>
> On Sun, Aug 19, 2018 at 1:28 PM Linus Torvalds
> wrote:
> >
> > Well, it turns out that we effectively stopped supporting gcc < 4.6
> > during this merge window for other reasons, so..
>
> For the whole kernel (or just a particular
On Sun, Aug 19, 2018 at 1:28 PM Linus Torvalds
wrote:
>
> On Sun, Aug 19, 2018 at 1:25 PM Nick Desaulniers
> wrote:
> >
> > + gbiv who wrote this cool paste (showing alternatives to
> > _Static_assert, which is supported by both compilers in -std=gnu89,
> > but not until gcc 4.6):
On Sun, Aug 19, 2018 at 1:28 PM Linus Torvalds
wrote:
>
> On Sun, Aug 19, 2018 at 1:25 PM Nick Desaulniers
> wrote:
> >
> > + gbiv who wrote this cool paste (showing alternatives to
> > _Static_assert, which is supported by both compilers in -std=gnu89,
> > but not until gcc 4.6):
On Sun, Aug 19, 2018 at 1:25 PM Nick Desaulniers
wrote:
>
> + gbiv who wrote this cool paste (showing alternatives to
> _Static_assert, which is supported by both compilers in -std=gnu89,
> but not until gcc 4.6): https://godbolt.org/g/DuLsxu
>
> I can't help but think that BUILD_BUG_ON_MSG
On Sun, Aug 19, 2018 at 1:25 PM Nick Desaulniers
wrote:
>
> + gbiv who wrote this cool paste (showing alternatives to
> _Static_assert, which is supported by both compilers in -std=gnu89,
> but not until gcc 4.6): https://godbolt.org/g/DuLsxu
>
> I can't help but think that BUILD_BUG_ON_MSG
+ gbiv who wrote this cool paste (showing alternatives to
_Static_assert, which is supported by both compilers in -std=gnu89,
but not until gcc 4.6): https://godbolt.org/g/DuLsxu
I can't help but think that BUILD_BUG_ON_MSG should use
_Static_assert, then have fallbacks for gcc < 4.6.
On Sun,
+ gbiv who wrote this cool paste (showing alternatives to
_Static_assert, which is supported by both compilers in -std=gnu89,
but not until gcc 4.6): https://godbolt.org/g/DuLsxu
I can't help but think that BUILD_BUG_ON_MSG should use
_Static_assert, then have fallbacks for gcc < 4.6.
On Sun,
On Sat, Aug 18, 2018 at 10:51 PM, Masahiro Yamada
wrote:
> __compiletime_assert_fallback() is supposed to stop building earlier
> by using the negative-array-size method in case the compiler does not
> support "error" attribute, but has never worked like that.
>
> You can try this simple code:
>
On Sat, Aug 18, 2018 at 10:51 PM, Masahiro Yamada
wrote:
> __compiletime_assert_fallback() is supposed to stop building earlier
> by using the negative-array-size method in case the compiler does not
> support "error" attribute, but has never worked like that.
>
> You can try this simple code:
>
__compiletime_assert_fallback() is supposed to stop building earlier
by using the negative-array-size method in case the compiler does not
support "error" attribute, but has never worked like that.
You can try this simple code:
#include
void foo(void)
{
BUILD_BUG_ON(1);
__compiletime_assert_fallback() is supposed to stop building earlier
by using the negative-array-size method in case the compiler does not
support "error" attribute, but has never worked like that.
You can try this simple code:
#include
void foo(void)
{
BUILD_BUG_ON(1);
20 matches
Mail list logo
