Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2020 08:54:55 -0800 From: John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> To: Warner Losh <imp@FreeBSD.org>, src-committers@freebsd.org, svn-src-all@freebsd.org, svn-src-head@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r358392 - head/share/man/man9 Message-ID: <5a876bf9-56b5-9465-07f4-2c540313755d@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <202002271530.01RFUDJA087174@repo.freebsd.org> References: <202002271530.01RFUDJA087174@repo.freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 2/27/20 7:30 AM, Warner Losh wrote: > Author: imp > Date: Thu Feb 27 15:30:13 2020 > New Revision: 358392 > URL: https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/base/358392 > > Log: > _Static_assert is to be preferred to CTASSERT. > > Document the existing prefernce that _Static_assert be used in preference to the > old CTASSERT we used to use for compile time assertions. Actually, I think what we want to use is static_assert(). The intention in userland C is that _Static_assert() is an internal keyword and <assert.h> adds static_assert() as an alias, similar to <stdalign.h> defining alignas, etc. I think what we should do for the kernel is have <sys/systm.h> define map static_assert to _Static_assert and replace existing _Static_assert usage with the proper spelling. -- John Baldwin
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?5a876bf9-56b5-9465-07f4-2c540313755d>