Hi!
on 2022/7/22 09:02, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> Hi!
>
> On Fri, Jul 22, 2022 at 08:41:43AM +0800, Kewen.Lin wrote:
>> Hi Segher,
>>
>> Thanks for the comments!
>
> Always.
>
>>>> This patch is to fix empty TUs with one dummy variable definition
>>>> accordingly.
>>>
>>> You can also use
>>> enum{a};
>>> which is shorter, but more importantly does not generate any code.
>>> You can also do
>>> extern int dummy;
>>> of course -- same idea, no definitions, only declarations.
>>
>> The used "int dummy" follows some existing practices, IMHO in this
>> context it doesn't matter that it will generate code or not, any of
>> these alternatives still generates an assembly or object file, but
>> the generated file gets removed after the checking.
>
> It doesn't matter here, sure. But it is certainly simple enough to make
> it "extern int dummy" instead, not giving a bad example for future cases
> where it may matter :-)
>
OK.
>> May I still keep this "int dummy" to align with existing practices?
>
> Of course, it was just advice. If things are wrong (in my opinion that
> is!), I'll say so.
>
Got it, thanks! :)
>>> At least put it in #else then? Or just do things a bit more elegantly
>>> (do a dummy function around this for example).
>>
>> OK, since it can still emit error even without "#else", I didn't bother
>> to add it. I will add it, and update the "nope no good" to "#error
>> doesn't have float128 support".
>
> Just say
>
> ===
> void nope (void)
> {
> #ifndef __FLOAT128__
> nope no good
> #endif
> }
> ===
>
> which works in all cases?
Yeah, good idea, I'll make a new version of patch based on this.
Thanks again!
BR,
Kewen
>
> Less maintenance is a good thing :-)
>
>
> Segher
