On Sat, Aug 16, 2014 at 5:35 AM, David Herrmann <dh.herrm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi > > On Fri, Aug 15, 2014 at 5:22 PM, Daniele Nicolodi <dani...@grinta.net> > wrote: > > On 15/08/2014 16:30, David Herrmann wrote: > >> Ok, took me a while, but I now figured out how to cause compilation to > >> fail even in expressions that initialize types (_Static_assert is not > >> allowed there): > >> #define assert_const(expr) > >> ((void)(__builtin_types_compatible_p(int[(expr) ? 1 : -1], int[1]))) > >> > >> Btw., I like that more than our current assert_cc() fallback. But I > >> leave it up to you to decide. > >> > >> Anyhow, I found a way to make CONST_MAX work: > >> #define CONST_MAX(_A, _B) > >> (__builtin_choose_expr(__builtin_constant_p(_A) && > >> __builtin_constant_p(_B), ((_A) > (_B)) ? (_A) : (_B), (void)0)) > >> > >> This will return (void) in case _A or _B is not constant. Works fine > >> on LLVM, I now have to test it on gcc. If it works, I will commit it > >> and fix resolvd. > > > > Hello, > > > > this may be completely stupid, but if the only use case you have for > > CONST_MAX() is for computing the size of a data structure, I find > > something like > > > > #define MAXSIZE(A, B) sizeof(union { __typeof(A) a; __typeof(B) b;}) > > > > a little more clear and less magic, and I believe it has the same > > guarantees that the solution you found. > > Your MAXSIZE macro might add padding: > union A { > int a; > char b[5]; > }; > This union has size 8, not 5 (64bit). But CONST_MAX would return 5. > Not sure whether that really matters, though. And we could probably > add __packed__ to the definition. > > However, I noticed that GCC complains about using > statement-expressions to initialize static-const structure members, > even with my 'const' annotations added to MAX. *sigh* > Thus, I think I'll keep CONST_MAX, as we'd require a 3rd macro otherwise. > > If you know a way to unify them all, please lemme know. > > Thanks for getting this in! I had given up on receiving constructive feedback on my attempt to solve this earlier [1]. Glad your patch garnered useful feedback that got to a committable result! -Dan [1] http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/systemd-devel/2014-August/021761.html
_______________________________________________ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel