On Sun, Mar 10, 2019 at 10:19:37PM +0100, Rasmus Villemoes wrote: > On 10/03/2019 11.51, Alexey Dobriyan wrote: > > Userspace places static_assert() macro at <assert.h> > > > > So? That seems a rather weak argument. We have lots of interfaces that > also exist in userspace which are not declared in similar-named headers > (e.g. we have no stdio.h, which is where snprintf lives). Not to mention > that memcpy and friends are in <linux/string.h>, not a bare <string.h>.
Linux 0.01 had memcpy() in <string.h> in fact. :^) I don't know what happened. > Your assert.h would be the first and only header to live directly in > include/. > > If you can somehow convince Andrew to take it you can add a Meh'ed-by me. The whole BUILD_BUG() thing is a misnomer. Userspace has assert() forever and it doesn't require double negating (which is why assert is good and BUILD_BUG is bad). Once everything is converted to static_assert(), it will live in build_bug.h, so might as well put it into right place immediately.
