Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2015 08:17:53 +0200 From: Hans Petter Selasky <hps@selasky.org> To: John-Mark Gurney <jmg@funkthat.com> Cc: Ed Schouten <ed@nuxi.nl>, Bruce Evans <brde@optusnet.com.au>, src-committers@freebsd.org, svn-src-all@freebsd.org, svn-src-head@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r286170 - head/share/man/man9 Message-ID: <55D6C291.2080606@selasky.org> In-Reply-To: <20150804171051.GL78154@funkthat.com> References: <201508020022.t720MFqp023071@repo.freebsd.org> <20150802145434.V1128@besplex.bde.org> <CABh_MKm3cWbPu6WiP9i%2BF-6CuuAH-UAGcek8jEbN0ZxjNZ5GeA@mail.gmail.com> <55C09869.2040605@selasky.org> <20150804171051.GL78154@funkthat.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 08/04/15 19:10, John-Mark Gurney wrote: > Hans Petter Selasky wrote this message on Tue, Aug 04, 2015 at 12:48 +0200: >> My gut feeling is it's good practice to have those wrapper macros >> because they isolate the compiler into a consistent and coherent API. > > Except that we now have a consistent and coherent API w/ > _Static_assert... We emulate this function on all compilers (or at least > try to, see bde's other email about issues w/ the ifdef mess), and > is available to both userland and kernel... It will also be available > on other platforms, as opposed to having to port our CTASSERT macros > to other platforms and introduce #ifdef's to make it compatible... > >> Wouldn't the argument be the same for queue.3 . Once C-compilers finally >> decide to compile time support queues, we should throw queue.3 aswell? >> I'd say it is better to stay independent of what the compiler guys will >> come up with next, reminding me how hard it was to upgrade a machine >> recently from 9- to 10- because of C++11 .... > > Last I checked, they don't change their API's ever revision of the > langauge... > > Comparing this to C++11? Just wow, see above how this is properly > covered by the ifdef mess in sys/cdefs.h for all compilers, this won't > introduce any complications like the C++11... > Hi, Here is one more argument against using "_Static_assert()": According to "http://en.cppreference.com/w/c/language/_Static_assert" _Static_assert is C11 syntax only, and we compile the kernel using "-std=iso9899:1999" according to "conf/kern.mk:CFLAGS" in -current. So technically it shouldn't work, and it throws up compile errors with certain other C tools I'm using at work which are more strict than clang. Any comments? --HPS
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?55D6C291.2080606>