On Tue, Mar 3, 2020 at 7:47 PM Michael Matz <matz....@frakked.de> wrote: > > Hello, > > On Sat, 29 Feb 2020, uso ewin wrote: > > > 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) > > Fine with me at least. I'd say also without testing for anything like > -std=c2x, your call. > Ok, then I wont add -std=c2x now, mainly because gcc seems to accept c2x _Static_assert syntax even without the argument, (like it does for _Generic) I could add -std=c2x that only add the define, but if that's all this do, maybe wait for features that require it ?
> I have a mild preference for using parse_mult_str no matter if the > condition is true or false, obviating the need for an extra loop to skip > the STR tokens. Remember that you need to cstr_free the string in that > case (which you can avoid right now only because tcc_error doesn't > return). > Thanks for the feedback, I've update my branch (force push) following your recommendations. > > Ciao, > Michael. > I'll wait 3,4 days to see if there is feedback, if no I'll push on mob Matthias, _______________________________________________ Tinycc-devel mailing list Tinycc-devel@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/tinycc-devel
