> On Aug 21, 2024, at 10:45, Martin Uecker <uec...@tugraz.at> wrote: > > Am Mittwoch, dem 21.08.2024 um 16:34 +0200 schrieb Martin Uecker: >> Am Mittwoch, dem 21.08.2024 um 14:12 +0000 schrieb Qing Zhao: >> >>> >>> Yes, I do feel that the approach __builtin_get_counted_by is not very good. >>> Maybe it’s better to provide >>> A. __builtin_set_counted_by >>> or >>> B. The unary operator __counted_by(PTR) to return a Lvalue, in this case, >>> we need a __builtin_has_attribute first to check whether PTR has the >>> counted_by attribute first. >> >> You could potentially do the same __counted_by and test for type void. >> >> _Generic(typeof(__counted_by(PTR)), void: (void)0, __counted_by(PTR) = >> COUNT); > > But just doing A. also seems ok.
I am fine with A. It’s easier to be used by the end users. The only potential problem with A is, the functionality of READing the counted-by field is missing. Is that okay? Kees? Thanks. Qing > > Martin
