This ends up embedded in a for loop expression, ie. the C part in an for (A;B;C)
iirc, that means it needs to be a C expr rather than statement.. or something roughly like that, I'm too lazy to dig out my C grammar BR, -R On Sat, May 25, 2019 at 3:39 PM Ilia Mirkin <[email protected]> wrote: > > Why not just do it in a way that works for everyone? Both the do/while > method and the ifdef-based method that I suggested work everywhere. Or > is there another reason you prefer to use those statement expressions? > > On Sat, May 25, 2019 at 6:21 PM Rob Clark <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Is there a convenient #ifdef I can use to guard the list_assert() > > macro.. I don't really mind if MSVC can't have this, but would rather > > not let it prevent the rest of us from having nice things > > > > BR, > > -R > > > > On Sat, May 25, 2019 at 1:23 PM Jason Ekstrand <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > Yeah, that's a GNU extension. It also works in clang but not MSVC which is > > > used to build NIR. > > > > > > On May 25, 2019 13:30:29 Rob Clark <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > On Sat, May 25, 2019 at 11:13 AM Ilia Mirkin <[email protected]> > > > > wrote: > > > >> > > > >> On Sat, May 25, 2019 at 2:03 PM Rob Clark <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> > > > > >> > From: Rob Clark <[email protected]> > > > >> > > > > >> > Debugging use of unsafe iterators when you should have used the _safe > > > >> > version sucks. Add some DEBUG build support to catch and assert if > > > >> > someone does that. > > > >> > > > > >> > I didn't update the UPPERCASE verions of the iterators. They should > > > >> > probably be deprecated/removed. > > > >> > > > > >> > Signed-off-by: Rob Clark <[email protected]> > > > >> > --- > > > >> > src/util/list.h | 23 ++++++++++++++++++----- > > > >> > 1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) > > > >> > > > > >> > diff --git a/src/util/list.h b/src/util/list.h > > > >> > index 09d1b4cae64..6d89a42b226 100644 > > > >> > --- a/src/util/list.h > > > >> > +++ b/src/util/list.h > > > >> > @@ -43,6 +43,13 @@ > > > >> > #include <assert.h> > > > >> > #include "c99_compat.h" > > > >> > > > > >> > +#ifdef DEBUG > > > >> > +# define LIST_DEBUG 1 > > > >> > +#else > > > >> > +# define LIST_DEBUG 0 > > > >> > +#endif > > > >> > + > > > >> > +#define list_assert(cond, msg) ({ if (LIST_DEBUG) assert((cond) && > > > >> > msg); }) > > > >> > > > >> Not sure if it's worth worrying about, but this style of macro > > > >> definition can be dangerous. One might use it as > > > >> > > > >> if (x) list_assert() > > > >> else blah; > > > >> > > > >> With the macro defined as-is, the "else blah" will get attached to the > > > >> if in the macro. I believe the common style is to do do {}while(0) to > > > >> avoid such issues (or to use an inline function). Alternatively, just > > > >> define it differently for LIST_DEBUG vs not. > > > >> > > > > > > > > I think the ({ ... }) should save the day.. > > > > > > > > (hmm, is that c99 or a gnu thing? I've it isn't avail on some > > > > compilers I guess we should disable list_assert() for those?) > > > > > > > > BR, > > > > -R > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > mesa-dev mailing list > > > > [email protected] > > > > https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
