> It seems to me that there is a good point to be consistent with the treatment > of StaticAssertStmt and StaticAssertExpr in c.h, which have fallback > implementations in *all* the configurations supported.
Consistency is good, but: * That is beyond the scope for what I wanted my patch to achieve; my use-cases are C code only * It is too risky for me to simply cut/paste my C version of StaticAssertDecl and hope it will work OK for C++. It needs lots of testing because there seems evidence that bad things can happen. E.g. Peter Eisentraut wrote "if you're asking, why is the fallback implementation in C++ different from the one in C, then that's because the C variant didn't work in C++." ~ I am happy if somebody else with more ability to test C++ properly wants to add the __cplusplus variant of the new macro. Meanwhile, I've attached latest re-based version of this patch. Kind Regards. -- Peter Smith Fujitsu Australia
ct_asserts_StaticAssertDecl_4.patch
Description: ct_asserts_StaticAssertDecl_4.patch
