On Thu, Feb 27, 2025 at 08:44:25PM +0000, Joseph Myers via Gcc wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Feb 2025, Alejandro Colomar via Gcc wrote:
>
> > Can you please confirm if we should add a version of this operator that
> > need not be diagnosed under pedantic mode? If so, I'll propose this
>
> I'm doubtful of the need for a second variant, but in any case the
> starting point should be a patch that implements the standard name and
> semantics (and then if an extension is needed, it might go on top of that,
> whether in the same patch or a separate patch).
Yeah. In order to avoid the pedantic warning, one can always use
(__extension__ _Countof (x))
Jakub
