Hi Matthias, I'm not an official maintainer but, IMHO, you should also add -std=xxx option that corresponds to the C version of the new features you want to introduce. I added c11 few months ago: -std=c99 Conform to the ISO 1999 C standard (default). -std=c11 Conform to the ISO 2011 C standard.
And gcc supports many other versions. A least, we should add: -std=c18 Conform to the ISO 2017 C standard (published in 2018). -std=c2x Conform to the ISO 202X C standard draft (experimental and incomplete support). And set __STDC__ and __STDC_VERSION__ accordingly. Currently, gcc set __STDC_VERSION__ to 202000 when you pass -std=c2x This way, you can pass -std=c2x to the test suite and change #elif defined test_static_assert_c2x By #elif __STDC_VERSION >= 201710L Otherwise, as far I can tell, your patch looks good to me. M2c -----Original Message----- From: Tinycc-devel [mailto:tinycc-devel-bounces+eligis=orange...@nongnu.org] On Behalf Of uso ewin Sent: Saturday, February 29, 2020 00:50 To: tinycc-devel@nongnu.org Subject: [Tinycc-devel] Introduce C2X _Static_assert syntax Hello, as I was working on fixing _Static_assert bug, I've saw that it was fairly easy to add C2x _Static_assert syntax support to tinycc. the code is here: https://github.com/cosmo-ray/tcc/commits/static_assert_c2x The only difference with current _Static_assert is that we can omit the literal string. Is the code okay ? Are you ok to introduce C2x feature to tinycc ? (gcc allow this too) I won't push this if I don't have a go from peoples here because C2x isn't standard yet. Matthias, _______________________________________________ Tinycc-devel mailing list Tinycc-devel@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/tinycc-devel _______________________________________________ Tinycc-devel mailing list Tinycc-devel@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/tinycc-devel
