Simple: one person adds a feature to one compiler, another adds the same feature in a different way on another compiler, and now programs written for one compiler won't compile on the other.
On Fri, Mar 14, 2025, 11:04 Alejandro Colomar <a...@kernel.org> wrote: > Hi Jim, > > On Fri, Mar 14, 2025 at 10:29:42AM -0700, Jim Thompson wrote: > > I don't think that's the right question. The question is, why add > something > > non-standard to the language that's easy enough for anyone who wants it > to > > just add as a macro? > > It's not that easy. If you want to make it work for _BitInt() types, > you'll find that it's actually difficult (and you must call a popcount > function). > > And even for the usual macros that work for fundamental integer types, > reviewing the code is rather difficult, due to the many casts and > parentheses involved. I implemented one of those recently for > shadow-utils, and the other maintainers were rightfully scared about > reviewing that code. > > > To me people not answering THIS question is what leads > > to fragmented languages. > > Could you clarify how this could lead to a fragmented language? I think > it would unify the way people do this common operation, just like > _Countof() will unify how people get the number of elements of an array. > > > Have a lovely day! > Alex > > -- > <https://www.alejandro-colomar.es/> >
_______________________________________________ Tinycc-devel mailing list Tinycc-devel@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/tinycc-devel
