Hi,
On Sunday, September 16, 2012 04:23:14 PM Andres Freund wrote:
> What do you think about something like:
>
> typedef struct dlist_iter
> {
> /*
> * Use a union with equivalent storage as dlist_node to make it possible
> to * initialize the struct inside a macro without multiple evaluation. */
> union {
> struct {
> dlist_node *cur;
> dlist_node *end;
> };
> dlist_node init;
> };
> } dlist_iter;
>
> typedef struct dlist_mutable_iter
> {
> union {
> struct {
> dlist_node *cur;
> dlist_node *end;
> };
> dlist_node init;
> };
> dlist_node *next;
> } dlist_mutable_iter;
>
> #define dlist_iter_foreach(iter, ptr)
> \
> for (iter.init = (ptr)->head; iter.cur != iter.end;
> \
> iter.cur = iter.cur->next)
>
> #define dlist_iter_foreach_modify(iter, ptr)
>
\
> for (iter.init = (ptr)->head, iter.next = iter.cur->next;
> \
> iter.cur != iter.end
> \
> iter.cur = iter.next, iter.next = iter.cur->next)
>
> With that and some trivial changes *all* multiple evaluation possibilities
> are gone.
>
> (_iter_ in there would go, thats just so I can have both in the same file
> for now).
I am thinking whether a macro like:
#if __GNUC__ > 4 || (__GNUC__ == 4 && __GNUC_MINOR__ >= 6)
#define assert_compatible_types(a, b) _Static_assert( \
__builtin_types_compatible_p(a, __typeof__ (b) ), \
"variable `" #b "` is not compatible to type `" #a "`" )
#else
#define assert_compatible_types(a, b) (void)0
#endif
used like:
#define dlist_iter_foreach(iter, ptr)
\
assert_compatible_types(dlist_iter, iter);
\
for (iter.init = (ptr)->head; iter.cur != iter.end;
\
iter.cur = iter.cur->next)
would be useful.
If you use the wrong type you get an error like:
error: static assertion failed: "variable `iter` is not compatible to type
`dlist_iter`"
Do people think this is something worthwile for some of the macros in pg? At
times the compiler errors that get generated in larger macros can be a bit
confusing and something like that would make it easier to see the originating
error.
I found __builtin_types_compatible while perusing the gcc docs to find whether
there is something like __builtin_constant_p for checking the pureness of an
expression ;)
Andres
--
Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
