[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Tinycc-devel] Introduce C2X _Static_assert syntax
From: |
Christian Jullien |
Subject: |
Re: [Tinycc-devel] Introduce C2X _Static_assert syntax |
Date: |
Sat, 29 Feb 2020 06:46:30 +0100 |
Hi Matthias,
I'm not an official maintainer but, IMHO, you should also add -std=xxx option
that corresponds to the C version of the new features you want to introduce.
I added c11 few months ago:
-std=c99 Conform to the ISO 1999 C standard (default).
-std=c11 Conform to the ISO 2011 C standard.
And gcc supports many other versions. A least, we should add:
-std=c18 Conform to the ISO 2017 C standard (published in
2018).
-std=c2x Conform to the ISO 202X C standard draft
(experimental and incomplete support).
And set __STDC__ and __STDC_VERSION__ accordingly. Currently, gcc set
__STDC_VERSION__ to 202000 when you pass -std=c2x
This way, you can pass -std=c2x to the test suite and change
#elif defined test_static_assert_c2x
By
#elif __STDC_VERSION >= 201710L
Otherwise, as far I can tell, your patch looks good to me.
M2c
-----Original Message-----
From: Tinycc-devel [mailto:tinycc-devel-bounces+eligis=address@hidden] On
Behalf Of uso ewin
Sent: Saturday, February 29, 2020 00:50
To: address@hidden
Subject: [Tinycc-devel] Introduce C2X _Static_assert syntax
Hello, as I was working on fixing _Static_assert bug,
I've saw that it was fairly easy to add C2x _Static_assert
syntax support to tinycc.
the code is here: https://github.com/cosmo-ray/tcc/commits/static_assert_c2x
The only difference with current _Static_assert is
that we can omit the literal string.
Is the code okay ?
Are you ok to introduce C2x feature to tinycc ? (gcc allow this too)
I won't push this if I don't have a go from peoples here
because C2x isn't standard yet.
Matthias,
_______________________________________________
Tinycc-devel mailing list
address@hidden
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/tinycc-devel