On 2025-12-03 20:23:30+0100, Willy Tarreau wrote: > On Wed, Dec 03, 2025 at 08:19:13PM +0100, Thomas Weißschuh wrote: > > On 2025-11-30 12:08:56+0100, Willy Tarreau wrote: > > > On Sat, Nov 22, 2025 at 05:59:18PM +0100, Thomas Weißschuh wrote: > > > > Add a wrapper for _Static_assert() to use within nolibc. > > > > While _Static_assert() itself was only standardized in C11, > > > > in GCC and clang dialects it is also available in older standards. > > > > > > > > If it turns out that _Static_assert can't be used in some contexts, > > > > this wrapper can be adapted. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Thomas Weißschuh <[email protected]> > > > > --- > > > > tools/include/nolibc/compiler.h | 2 ++ > > > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+) > > > > > > > > diff --git a/tools/include/nolibc/compiler.h > > > > b/tools/include/nolibc/compiler.h > > > > index 87090bbc53e0..ef247e916552 100644 > > > > --- a/tools/include/nolibc/compiler.h > > > > +++ b/tools/include/nolibc/compiler.h > > > > @@ -47,4 +47,6 @@ > > > > # define __nolibc_fallthrough do { } while (0) > > > > #endif /* __nolibc_has_attribute(fallthrough) */ > > > > > > > > +#define __nolibc_static_assert(_t) _Static_assert(_t, "") > > > > > > I'm not super fan of raising the bar to adoption by introducing forced > > > C11-isms, especially when they're only used to perform extra safety > > > checks that likely remain fine after you've checked them once. What > > > about instead: > > > > > > +#if __STDC_VERSION__ >= 201112L > > > +# define __nolibc_static_assert(_t) _Static_assert(_t, "") > > > +#endif > > > +# define __nolibc_static_assert(_t) do { } while (0) > > > +#else > > > > > > Note that this won't work out of code blocks but we very likely don't > > > care. And if we'd care, we could always switch to __asm__("") which > > > works everywhere. > > > > > > What do you think ? > > > > That works. But it won't be evaluated when not building with C11. > > Which would not make it trigger when building nolibc-test. > > So I don't want to guard it behind __STDC_VERSION__. But so far I was > > not able to find a better, more dynamic guard. I'll look again. > > Non-standard _Static_assert() is supported since GCC 4.6 and clang 3.0. > > Fine, then we can just have a compiler version check as well, even a rough > one, since we don't reallly care about static asserts for pretty old or > uncommon versions, but for the modern ones that are used by developers > and test systems. > > I'd suggest going the easy route for now by checking for GCC major >= 5 > or clang major >= 3 and be done with it.
Ack. Let's do that. Thomas
