From: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>
To: nicola.vetrini@gmail.com
Cc: "Andrew Cooper" <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com>,
"Anthony PERARD" <anthony.perard@vates.tech>,
"Michal Orzel" <michal.orzel@amd.com>,
"Julien Grall" <julien@xen.org>,
"Roger Pau Monné" <roger.pau@citrix.com>,
"Stefano Stabellini" <sstabellini@kernel.org>,
xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
Subject: Re: [XEN PATCH 2/3] xen/macros: Drop alternative definition of BUILD_BUG_ON(_ZERO)? for old GCC
Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2025 10:07:59 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <0fde3942-22e7-470c-ad70-aa2c574d10dc@suse.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <d716610470ddd7da75789cfa546ed209ff24e1d1.1755111932.git.nicola.vetrini@bugseng.com>
On 13.08.2025 21:12, nicola.vetrini@gmail.com wrote:
> From: Nicola Vetrini <nicola.vetrini@gmail.com>
>
> The toolchain baseline for GCC is 5.1, which supports _Static_assert
> in c99 mode
Hmm, interesting. I can confirm the behavior, but isn't this a bug? There's no
_Static_assert() in plain C99. Respective notes in the "Changes, New Features,
and Fixes" are also saying otherwise: https://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-4.6/changes.html
has "This support may be selected with -std=c1x, or -std=gnu1x for C1X with
GNU extensions." Nothing new is said in any of the respective documents up to
the release of gcc5. (In fact, the compiler accepts the construct even with
-std=c89.)
Our misra/C-language-toolchain.rst refers to a section in gcc12's doc which
doesn't mention _Static_assert() at all, afaics.
Jan
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-08-14 8:08 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-08-13 19:12 [XEN PATCH 0/3] Drop alternative definitions for unsupported GCCs nicola.vetrini
2025-08-13 19:12 ` [XEN PATCH 1/3] xen/compiler: drop alternative unreachable() definition for older GCC nicola.vetrini
2025-08-13 22:32 ` Andrew Cooper
2025-08-13 19:12 ` [XEN PATCH 2/3] xen/macros: Drop alternative definition of BUILD_BUG_ON(_ZERO)? for old GCC nicola.vetrini
2025-08-13 22:33 ` Andrew Cooper
2025-08-14 8:07 ` Jan Beulich [this message]
2025-08-14 9:16 ` Nicola Vetrini
2025-08-13 19:12 ` [XEN PATCH 3/3] xen/efi: efibind: Drop alternative define for old GCC versions nicola.vetrini
2025-08-13 22:39 ` Andrew Cooper
2025-08-14 7:48 ` Jan Beulich
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=0fde3942-22e7-470c-ad70-aa2c574d10dc@suse.com \
--to=jbeulich@suse.com \
--cc=andrew.cooper3@citrix.com \
--cc=anthony.perard@vates.tech \
--cc=julien@xen.org \
--cc=michal.orzel@amd.com \
--cc=nicola.vetrini@gmail.com \
--cc=roger.pau@citrix.com \
--cc=sstabellini@kernel.org \
--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 an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.