Message ID | 60e9783e-d324-2d12-5744-68a3b2e5c96a@suse.cz |
---|---|
State | New |
Headers |
Return-Path: <gcc-patches-bounces+patchwork=sourceware.org@gcc.gnu.org> X-Original-To: patchwork@sourceware.org Delivered-To: patchwork@sourceware.org Received: from server2.sourceware.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 773613877020 for <patchwork@sourceware.org>; Thu, 5 May 2022 12:20:13 +0000 (GMT) X-Original-To: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org Delivered-To: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org Received: from smtp-out2.suse.de (smtp-out2.suse.de [195.135.220.29]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D1D9938515F6 for <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>; Thu, 5 May 2022 12:18:59 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org D1D9938515F6 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=suse.cz Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=suse.cz Received: from imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de (imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de [192.168.254.74]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-521) server-digest SHA512) (No client certificate requested) by smtp-out2.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 17AC31F8D3 for <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>; Thu, 5 May 2022 12:18:59 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.cz; s=susede2_rsa; t=1651753139; h=from:from:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to:cc: mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding; bh=V9Uc5o2Ysmv+5rApBYG/vKnX8Lr4SAOtEqS9YP0lbTU=; b=RYMDqrr/Ke7tsfM80muB7Qo8NC36IEkeOVf5iyT08TW7V0EVeVWG3z0/G916apRbBsHHK4 2CPMMJrjpjDtxKzhIbGB1ad8/N6VRIIozcEZkFQizh/0OaMVckT+mFuVMghao82wM0+00Q arnjs6sDqHDQQu40v/5mtERv9nD3EEU= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.cz; s=susede2_ed25519; t=1651753139; h=from:from:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to:cc: mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding; bh=V9Uc5o2Ysmv+5rApBYG/vKnX8Lr4SAOtEqS9YP0lbTU=; b=0m4S/hBs30W7mh20oYt8T0f1MSRqlbRMJRTiLAxmgqHmq/mQSnGL843m14k41C+vVwk0ZJ 9xUc3FPzwh/M13BA== Received: from imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de (imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de [192.168.254.74]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-521) server-digest SHA512) (No client certificate requested) by imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 09C2513A65 for <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>; Thu, 5 May 2022 12:18:59 +0000 (UTC) Received: from dovecot-director2.suse.de ([192.168.254.65]) by imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de with ESMTPSA id rDY8AbPAc2KQfAAAMHmgww (envelope-from <mliska@suse.cz>) for <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>; Thu, 05 May 2022 12:18:59 +0000 Message-ID: <60e9783e-d324-2d12-5744-68a3b2e5c96a@suse.cz> Date: Thu, 5 May 2022 14:18:58 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.8.1 From: =?utf-8?q?Martin_Li=C5=A1ka?= <mliska@suse.cz> Subject: [PATCH] Remove conditional STATIC_ASSERT. To: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org Content-Language: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Status: No, score=-11.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, DKIM_VALID_EF, GIT_PATCH_0, SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS, TXREP, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on server2.sourceware.org X-BeenThere: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Gcc-patches mailing list <gcc-patches.gcc.gnu.org> List-Unsubscribe: <https://gcc.gnu.org/mailman/options/gcc-patches>, <mailto:gcc-patches-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/> List-Post: <mailto:gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org> List-Help: <mailto:gcc-patches-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <https://gcc.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gcc-patches>, <mailto:gcc-patches-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=subscribe> Errors-To: gcc-patches-bounces+patchwork=sourceware.org@gcc.gnu.org Sender: "Gcc-patches" <gcc-patches-bounces+patchwork=sourceware.org@gcc.gnu.org> |
Series |
Remove conditional STATIC_ASSERT.
|
|
Commit Message
Martin Liška
May 5, 2022, 12:18 p.m. UTC
As we require a c++11 compliant compiler, the #if __cplusplus >= 201103L conditional build is always true. Patch can bootstrap on x86_64-linux-gnu and survives regression tests. Ready to be installed? Thanks, Martin gcc/ChangeLog: * basic-block.h (STATIC_ASSERT): Use normal STATIC_ASSERT. * system.h (STATIC_ASSERT): Define always as static_assert. --- gcc/basic-block.h | 5 +---- gcc/system.h | 9 +-------- 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
Comments
On Thu, May 5, 2022 at 2:20 PM Martin Liška <mliska@suse.cz> wrote: > > As we require a c++11 compliant compiler, the #if __cplusplus >= 201103L > conditional build is always true. > > Patch can bootstrap on x86_64-linux-gnu and survives regression tests. > > Ready to be installed? Can we then use static_assert (...) instead and remove the macro? Do we have C compiled code left (I think we might, otherwise we'd not have __cplusplus guards in system.h), in which case the #if should change to #ifdef __cplusplus? Thanks, Richard. > Thanks, > Martin > > gcc/ChangeLog: > > * basic-block.h (STATIC_ASSERT): Use normal STATIC_ASSERT. > * system.h (STATIC_ASSERT): Define always as static_assert. > --- > gcc/basic-block.h | 5 +---- > gcc/system.h | 9 +-------- > 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/gcc/basic-block.h b/gcc/basic-block.h > index e3fff1f6975..21a9b24dbf9 100644 > --- a/gcc/basic-block.h > +++ b/gcc/basic-block.h > @@ -158,10 +158,7 @@ struct GTY((chain_next ("%h.next_bb"), chain_prev ("%h.prev_bb"))) basic_block_d > /* This ensures that struct gimple_bb_info is smaller than > struct rtl_bb_info, so that inlining the former into basic_block_def > is the better choice. */ > -typedef int __assert_gimple_bb_smaller_rtl_bb > - [(int) sizeof (struct rtl_bb_info) > - - (int) sizeof (struct gimple_bb_info)]; > - > +STATIC_ASSERT (sizeof (rtl_bb_info) >= sizeof (gimple_bb_info)); > > #define BB_FREQ_MAX 10000 > > diff --git a/gcc/system.h b/gcc/system.h > index 1688b763ef5..48145951337 100644 > --- a/gcc/system.h > +++ b/gcc/system.h > @@ -801,14 +801,7 @@ extern void fancy_abort (const char *, int, const char *) > > #define STATIC_CONSTANT_P(X) (__builtin_constant_p (X) && (X)) > > -/* static_assert (COND, MESSAGE) is available in C++11 onwards. */ > -#if __cplusplus >= 201103L > -#define STATIC_ASSERT(X) \ > - static_assert ((X), #X) > -#else > -#define STATIC_ASSERT(X) \ > - typedef int assertion1[(X) ? 1 : -1] ATTRIBUTE_UNUSED > -#endif > +#define STATIC_ASSERT(X) static_assert ((X), #X) > > /* Provide a fake boolean type. We make no attempt to use the > C99 _Bool, as it may not be available in the bootstrap compiler, > -- > 2.36.0 >
On 5/5/22 14:29, Richard Biener wrote: > Can we then use static_assert (...) instead and remove the > macro? Oh yes, we can ;) > Do we have C compiled code left (I think we might, > otherwise we'd not have __cplusplus guards in system.h), > in which case the #if should change to #ifdef __cplusplus? No, there's no such a consumer of the macro. What about the updated version of the patch? Cheers, Martin
On 2022-05-05 13:41, Martin Liška wrote: > On 5/5/22 14:29, Richard Biener wrote: >> Can we then use static_assert (...) instead and remove the >> macro? > > Oh yes, we can ;) > >> Do we have C compiled code left (I think we might, >> otherwise we'd not have __cplusplus guards in system.h), >> in which case the #if should change to #ifdef __cplusplus? > > No, there's no such a consumer of the macro. > > What about the updated version of the patch? static_assert without the second/message parameter requires C++17: https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/language/static_assert The macro expanded to always have a message argument.
On 5/5/22 14:51, Pedro Alves wrote: > On 2022-05-05 13:41, Martin Liška wrote: >> On 5/5/22 14:29, Richard Biener wrote: >>> Can we then use static_assert (...) instead and remove the >>> macro? >> >> Oh yes, we can ;) >> >>> Do we have C compiled code left (I think we might, >>> otherwise we'd not have __cplusplus guards in system.h), >>> in which case the #if should change to #ifdef __cplusplus? >> >> No, there's no such a consumer of the macro. >> >> What about the updated version of the patch? > > static_assert without the second/message parameter requires C++17: > > https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/language/static_assert Oh, you are correct :) Thanks: /home/marxin/Programming/gcc/gcc/wide-int.h: In static member function ‘static wide_int wi::int_traits<wide_int_storage>::get_binary_result(const T1&, const T2&)’: /home/marxin/Programming/gcc/gcc/wide-int.h:1205:60: warning: ‘static_assert’ without a message only available with ‘-std=c++17’ or ‘-std=gnu++17’ [-Wpedantic] 1205 | || wi::int_traits <T2>::precision_type != FLEXIBLE_PRECISION); > > The macro expanded to always have a message argument. That said, we should go with the original version of the patch. Cheers, Martin
On Thu, May 5, 2022 at 2:41 PM Martin Liška <mliska@suse.cz> wrote: > > On 5/5/22 14:29, Richard Biener wrote: > > Can we then use static_assert (...) instead and remove the > > macro? > > Oh yes, we can ;) > > > Do we have C compiled code left (I think we might, > > otherwise we'd not have __cplusplus guards in system.h), > > in which case the #if should change to #ifdef __cplusplus? > > No, there's no such a consumer of the macro. OK, but for C uses it should still be different so my suggestion to change to #ifdef __cplusplus remains. OTOH then the change is somewhat pointless. > What about the updated version of the patch? > > Cheers, > Martin
On 5/5/22 15:08, Richard Biener wrote: > On Thu, May 5, 2022 at 2:41 PM Martin Liška <mliska@suse.cz> wrote: >> >> On 5/5/22 14:29, Richard Biener wrote: >>> Can we then use static_assert (...) instead and remove the >>> macro? >> >> Oh yes, we can ;) >> >>> Do we have C compiled code left (I think we might, >>> otherwise we'd not have __cplusplus guards in system.h), >>> in which case the #if should change to #ifdef __cplusplus? >> >> No, there's no such a consumer of the macro. > > OK, but for C uses it should still be different so my suggestion > to change to #ifdef __cplusplus remains. OTOH then the change > is somewhat pointless. Sure, so something like this? Thanks, Martin > >> What about the updated version of the patch? >> >> Cheers, >> Martin
On Mon, May 9, 2022 at 10:46 AM Martin Liška <mliska@suse.cz> wrote: > > On 5/5/22 15:08, Richard Biener wrote: > > On Thu, May 5, 2022 at 2:41 PM Martin Liška <mliska@suse.cz> wrote: > >> > >> On 5/5/22 14:29, Richard Biener wrote: > >>> Can we then use static_assert (...) instead and remove the > >>> macro? > >> > >> Oh yes, we can ;) > >> > >>> Do we have C compiled code left (I think we might, > >>> otherwise we'd not have __cplusplus guards in system.h), > >>> in which case the #if should change to #ifdef __cplusplus? > >> > >> No, there's no such a consumer of the macro. > > > > OK, but for C uses it should still be different so my suggestion > > to change to #ifdef __cplusplus remains. OTOH then the change > > is somewhat pointless. > > Sure, so something like this? Works for me. Richard. > Thanks, > Martin > > > > >> What about the updated version of the patch? > >> > >> Cheers, > >> Martin
diff --git a/gcc/basic-block.h b/gcc/basic-block.h index e3fff1f6975..21a9b24dbf9 100644 --- a/gcc/basic-block.h +++ b/gcc/basic-block.h @@ -158,10 +158,7 @@ struct GTY((chain_next ("%h.next_bb"), chain_prev ("%h.prev_bb"))) basic_block_d /* This ensures that struct gimple_bb_info is smaller than struct rtl_bb_info, so that inlining the former into basic_block_def is the better choice. */ -typedef int __assert_gimple_bb_smaller_rtl_bb - [(int) sizeof (struct rtl_bb_info) - - (int) sizeof (struct gimple_bb_info)]; - +STATIC_ASSERT (sizeof (rtl_bb_info) >= sizeof (gimple_bb_info)); #define BB_FREQ_MAX 10000 diff --git a/gcc/system.h b/gcc/system.h index 1688b763ef5..48145951337 100644 --- a/gcc/system.h +++ b/gcc/system.h @@ -801,14 +801,7 @@ extern void fancy_abort (const char *, int, const char *) #define STATIC_CONSTANT_P(X) (__builtin_constant_p (X) && (X)) -/* static_assert (COND, MESSAGE) is available in C++11 onwards. */ -#if __cplusplus >= 201103L -#define STATIC_ASSERT(X) \ - static_assert ((X), #X) -#else -#define STATIC_ASSERT(X) \ - typedef int assertion1[(X) ? 1 : -1] ATTRIBUTE_UNUSED -#endif +#define STATIC_ASSERT(X) static_assert ((X), #X) /* Provide a fake boolean type. We make no attempt to use the C99 _Bool, as it may not be available in the bootstrap compiler,