tly propose lengthof as the standardization
> - When ISO C accepts _Lengthof and lengthof, map _Lengthof in GCC to
>the same internals as __lengthof__, so they are the same thing.
>
> Still, I'm interested in having some feedback from WG14, to prevent
> implementing some
Am 8. August 2024 13:28:57 MESZ schrieb Joseph Myers :
> On Thu, 8 Aug 2024, Alejandro Colomar wrote:
>
> > Hi Jens,
> >
> > On Thu, Aug 08, 2024 at 11:13:02AM GMT, Jens Gustedt wrote:
> > > > but to maintain expectations, I think it would be better to do
>
Am 8. August 2024 17:42:54 MESZ schrieb Martin Uecker :
> Am Donnerstag, dem 08.08.2024 um 16:56 +0200 schrieb Jens Gustedt:
> > Am 8. August 2024 13:28:57 MESZ schrieb Joseph Myers :
> > > On Thu, 8 Aug 2024, Alejandro Colomar wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi Jens
that would like to
follow.
And also as said, all other features in the standard, being types, typeof, or
expressions, e.g offsetof, unreachable or other gnu extensions, don't have nor
need this kind of syntax.
We should be designing features for the future, not the past
Jens
--
Jens
Am 8. August 2024 19:21:23 MESZ schrieb David Brown :
>
>
> On 08/08/2024 11:13, Jens Gustedt wrote:
> > Hi
> >
> > Am 8. August 2024 10:26:14 MESZ schrieb Alejandro Colomar :
> >> Hello Jens,
> >>
> >> On Thu, Aug 08, 2024 at 07:
ot
> been that useful.
>
> Those emails from 2020 were in fact discussing two completely different
> proposals at once:
>
> 1. Add _Lengthof + #include
> 2. Allow static qualifier on compound literals
>
> Whereas proposal #2 made it into C23 (kudos to Jens Gustedt!),
sing two completely different
> > proposals at once:
> >
> > 1. Add _Lengthof + #include
> > 2. Allow static qualifier on compound literals
>
> Yup.
>
> > Whereas proposal #2 made it into C23 (kudos to Jens Gustedt!), and as
> > you already know by n
se an implementation in the language where doing it in a
header can be completely sufficient.
Plus, implementing as a macro in a header (probably ) makes also a
feature test, for those applications that already have something similar.
this was basically what we did for `unreachable` and I think it wo
er dimension
sizeof would need a loop, no ?
Generally I would be opposed to imposing a complicated solution for a simple
feature
Jens
>
> ~Aaron
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Jens Gustedt
> Sent: Wednesday, August 14, 2024 8:18 AM
> To: Ballman, Aaron ; Alejandr
Am 14. August 2024 14:58:16 MESZ schrieb Alejandro Colomar :
> Hi Aaron, Jens,
>
> On Wed, Aug 14, 2024 at 02:17:52PM GMT, Jens Gustedt wrote:
> > Am 14. August 2024 13:31:19 MESZ schrieb "Ballman, Aaron"
> > :
> > > Sorry for top-post
Am 14. August 2024 16:47:32 MESZ schrieb Alejandro Colomar :
> On Wed, Aug 14, 2024 at 03:50:21PM GMT, Jens Gustedt wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > That said, I suspect WG14 would not be keen on standardizing
> > > > > `lengthof` without an ugly keyword
ds and for expression
> operands) covering cases that we *don't* want to support in future, not
> just this one that we would like to be supportable in future.
>
> I don't see any tests for the constraints on external definitions from
> 6.9.1 that we discussed - that
12 matches
Mail list logo
