I got no answer so I've push I hope I didn't break anything
Matthias, On Thu, Mar 5, 2020 at 10:01 AM uso ewin <uso.cosmo....@gmail.com> wrote: > > 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
