Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2019 20:33:50 +0200 From: Konstantin Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com> To: Hans Petter Selasky <hps@selasky.org> Cc: src-committers@freebsd.org, svn-src-all@freebsd.org, svn-src-stable@freebsd.org, svn-src-stable-12@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r354856 - stable/12/sys/amd64/amd64 Message-ID: <20191119183349.GA2707@kib.kiev.ua> In-Reply-To: <5b2560fa-78b8-457a-a6ba-a48547bae438@selasky.org> References: <201911191532.xAJFWFru096735@repo.freebsd.org> <5b2560fa-78b8-457a-a6ba-a48547bae438@selasky.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, Nov 19, 2019 at 05:08:13PM +0100, Hans Petter Selasky wrote: > On 2019-11-19 16:32, Konstantin Belousov wrote: > > +_Static_assert(nitems(gdt_segs) == NGDT, "Stale NGDT"); > > Why are you not using the CTASSERT() macro? Is _Static_assert() portable? _Static_assert() is the feature of C11, while CTASSERT() is an old FreeBSD macro, which historically has very serious usability issues (they were fixed by redefining CTASSERT() to just _Static_assert() with useless message). In this sense yes, _Static_assert() is more portable, but I also do not see a reason to introduce new uses of CTASSERT().
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20191119183349.GA2707>