Hi
On Sat, Aug 16, 2014 at 1:29 PM, Daniele Nicolodi <dani...@grinta.net> wrote:
> On 16/08/2014 12:35, David Herrmann wrote:
>> On Fri, Aug 15, 2014 at 5:22 PM, Daniele Nicolodi <dani...@grinta.net> wrote:
>>> 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:
>
>> 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.
>
> Indeed it does add padding. Adding the __packed__ attribute solves the
> problem:
>
> #define MAXSIZE(A, B) sizeof( \
> union __attribute__((__packed__)) { \
> __typeof(A) a; __typeof(B) b;})
>
>> 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.
>
> My proposal was based on the fact that the only use of CONST_MAX there
> is (was?) in the code was about array size declarations, and I find
> MAXSIZE() much easier to understand.
I've added the macro now.
Thanks!
David
_______________________________________________
systemd-devel mailing list
systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
