From: Tim Deegan <tim@xen.org>
To: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>
Cc: Roberto Bagnara <roberto.bagnara@bugseng.com>,
xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
Subject: Re: Invalid _Static_assert expanded from HASH_CALLBACKS_CHECK
Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2021 17:20:58 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <YL5Hah0rmLMpG/rs@deinos.phlegethon.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <11b5b29e-0baf-9f50-6d9e-985e791148b2@suse.com>
Hi,
At 08:45 +0200 on 31 May (1622450756), Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 28.05.2021 17:44, Tim Deegan wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > At 10:58 +0200 on 25 May (1621940330), Jan Beulich wrote:
> >> On 24.05.2021 06:29, Roberto Bagnara wrote:
> >>> I stumbled upon parsing errors due to invalid uses of
> >>> _Static_assert expanded from HASH_CALLBACKS_CHECK where
> >>> the tested expression is not constant, as mandated by
> >>> the C standard.
> >>>
> >>> Judging from the following comment, there is partial awareness
> >>> of the fact this is an issue:
> >>>
> >>> #ifndef __clang__ /* At least some versions dislike some of the uses. */
> >>> #define HASH_CALLBACKS_CHECK(mask) \
> >>> BUILD_BUG_ON((mask) > (1U << ARRAY_SIZE(callbacks)) - 1)
> >>>
> >>> Indeed, this is not a fault of Clang: the point is that some
> >>> of the expansions of this macro are not C. Moreover,
> >>> the fact that GCC sometimes accepts them is not
> >>> something we can rely upon:
> >
> > Well, that is unfortunate - especially since the older ad-hoc
> > compile-time assertion macros handled this kind of thing pretty well.
> > Why when I were a lad &c &c. :)
>
> So I have to admit I don't understand: The commit introducing
> HASH_CALLBACKS_CHECK() (90629587e16e "x86/shadow: replace stale
> literal numbers in hash_{vcpu,domain}_foreach()") did not replace
> any prior compile-time checking. Hence I wonder what you're
> referring to (and hence what alternative ways of dealing with the
> situation there might be that I'm presently not seeing).
Sorry, I wasn't clear. Before there was compiler support for
compile-time assertions, people used horrible macros that expanded to
things like int x[(p)?0:-1]. (I don't remember which exact flavour we
had in Xen.) Those worked fine with static consts because the
predicates only had to be compile-time constant in practice, but now
they have to be constant in principle too.
So I don't think there was a better way of adding these assertions in
90629587e16e, I'm just generally grumbling that the official
compile-time assertions are not quite as useful as the hacks they
replaced.
And I am definitely *not* suggesting that we go back to those kind of
hacks just to get around the compiler's insistence on the letter of
the law. :)
Cheers,
Tim.
prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-06-07 16:21 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-05-24 4:29 Invalid _Static_assert expanded from HASH_CALLBACKS_CHECK Roberto Bagnara
2021-05-25 8:58 ` Jan Beulich
2021-05-28 9:59 ` Roberto Bagnara
2021-05-28 10:07 ` Jan Beulich
2021-05-28 15:44 ` Tim Deegan
2021-05-31 6:45 ` Jan Beulich
2021-06-07 16:20 ` Tim Deegan [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=YL5Hah0rmLMpG/rs@deinos.phlegethon.org \
--to=tim@xen.org \
--cc=jbeulich@suse.com \
--cc=roberto.bagnara@bugseng.com \
--cc=xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).