Re: Refactor compile-time assertion checks for C/C++
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Refactor compile-time assertion checks for C/C++ |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 2636.1584369156@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Refactor compile-time assertion checks for C/C++ (Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>) |
Ответы |
Re: Refactor compile-time assertion checks for C/C++
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> writes: > On Fri, Mar 13, 2020 at 11:00:33AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >> If we do need to change it, I'd be inclined to just use the do{} >> block everywhere, not bothering with the extra #if test. > Not sure what you mean here because we cannot use the do{} flavor > either for the C fallback, no? See for example the definitions of > unconstify() in c.h. Sorry for being unclear --- I just meant that we could use do{} in StaticAssertStmt for both C and C++. Although now I notice that the code is trying to use StaticAssertStmt for StaticAssertExpr, which you're right isn't going to do. But I think something like this would work and be a bit simpler than what you proposed: #else /* Fallback implementation for C and C++ */ #define StaticAssertStmt(condition, errmessage) \ - ((void) sizeof(struct { int static_assert_failure : (condition) ? 1 : -1; })) + do { struct static_assert_struct { int static_assert_failure : (condition) ? 1 : -1; }; } while(0) #define StaticAssertExpr(condition, errmessage) \ - StaticAssertStmt(condition, errmessage) + ((void) sizeof(struct { int static_assert_failure : (condition) ? 1 : -1; })) #define StaticAssertDecl(condition, errmessage) \ regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: