On Tue, Oct 25, 2022 at 2:13 PM Paul Eggert <egg...@cs.ucla.edu> wrote: > > On 2022-10-23 07:47, Bruno Haible wrote: > > #include <assert.h> > > #undef/**/assert > > + /* Solaris 11.4 <assert.h> defines static_assert as a macro with 2 > > arguments. > > + We need it also to be invocable with a single argument. */ > > + #if defined __sun && (__STDC_VERSION__ - 0 >= 201112L) && !defined > > __cplusplus > > + #undef static_assert > > + #define static_assert _Static_assert > > + #endif > > #endif]) > > Will this approach work if code does something like the following? I > worry that the later <assert.h> includes would collide with config.h's > definition of static_assert. > > #include <config.h> > > #define NDEBUG 1 > #include <assert.h> > > #define NDEBUG 0 > #include <assert.h> > > static_assert (true); > > Come to think of it, the latest C23 draft is a little squirrelly here, > as its section 7.2 says that <assert.h> defines a static_assert macro. > This must be a typo because it never goes no to say anything about what > the macro does, and static_assert is a keyword in C23. > > Also, while we're on the topic, why does the latest C23 draft require > that when NDEBUG is defined, the assert macro is defined via "#define > assert(...) ((void)0)" rather than as "#define assert(ignore) > ((void)0)"? What's the point of requiring the ellipsis?
Re: the ellipses. From https://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2022/p2264r3.html, Section 8: These changes are relative to N2573. If those changes are applied the minimal change for C++ standard proposed above could be used. In section 7.2 (Diagnostics <assert.h>) change the definition of the assert() macro to use elipsis instead of a single macro parameter: ... Jeff
