Am Mittwoch, dem 23.07.2025 um 00:30 -0700 schrieb Kees Cook: > On Wed, Jul 23, 2025 at 07:47:11AM +0200, Martin Uecker wrote: ...
> > How would GCC want to define the syntax for expressions here? I still > think it should be possible to wire up something that matches it in > Clang, even if it is a "redundant" syntax within Clang (i.e. Clang can > support 2 way to handle expressions, GCC has 1, and Linux will use the > common way). >From the kernel side, what would be the use cases for the main expression syntax (do you really need arbitrary expressions?), and how often will you need it compared to the single identifier case? Martin > > The two things I've seen proposed during all of these discussions that > look like they should be workable are either: > > 1) making expression-using attributes _struct_ attributes, not struct > _member_ attributes. (i.e. parsing of the struct has ended) > > 2) using a callback for expressions (no late parsing needed) > > I'm well aware that Apple's implementation will not do either of these, > but I'm confident Clang can support the additional syntax -- it should > be possible to provide both, especially since it would be a "GCC > compatibility" issue. :) > > -Kees >
