From: Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>
To: Alireza Haghdoost <haghdoost@gmail.com>
Cc: "fio@vger.kernel.org" <fio@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: competime_assert failure without -O3 optimization flag expected ?
Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2015 12:29:12 -0600 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <55918E78.2050706@kernel.dk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAB-428=30M7HXTfL4P3KpyjAG3dqMA9vVirc8iyjbO-8eAgDrQ@mail.gmail.com>
On 06/29/2015 12:25 PM, Alireza Haghdoost wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 12:50 PM, Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk> wrote:
>> On 06/29/2015 11:42 AM, Alireza Haghdoost wrote:
>>>
>>> Jens,
>>>
>>> Sounds like the compiletime_assert() method was not function and is
>>> relying on the optimizer performing dead code elimination to remove
>>> the call to prefix ## suffix
>>>
>>> How about this solution: I guess we have to work around it to make it
>>> more portable since it works with C11.
>>>
>>> diff --git a/fio-arh/compiler/compiler.h b/fio-arh/compiler/compiler.h
>>> index 40e857c..7c9ba57 100644
>>> --- a/fio-arh/compiler/compiler.h
>>> +++ b/fio-arh/compiler/compiler.h
>>> @@ -33,26 +33,6 @@
>>> 1; \
>>> })
>>>
>>> -#ifndef __compiletime_error
>>> -#define __compiletime_error(message)
>>> -#endif
>>> -#ifndef __compiletime_error_fallback
>>> -#define __compiletime_error_fallback(condition) do { } while (0)
>>> -#endif
>>> -
>>> -#define __compiletime_assert(condition, msg, prefix, suffix) \
>>> - do { \
>>> - int __cond = !(condition); \
>>> - extern void prefix ## suffix(void) __compiletime_error(msg); \
>>> - if (__cond) \
>>> - prefix ## suffix(); \
>>> - __compiletime_error_fallback(__cond); \
>>> - } while (0)
>>> -
>>> -#define _compiletime_assert(condition, msg, prefix, suffix) \
>>> - __compiletime_assert(condition, msg, prefix, suffix)
>>> -
>>> -#define compiletime_assert(condition, msg) \
>>> - _compiletime_assert(condition, msg, __compiletime_assert_, __LINE__)
>>> +#define compiletime_assert(condition, msg) _Static_assert(condition, msg)
>>>
>>> #endif
>>
>>
>> But now it's more compiler dependent, which is worse than before. At least
>> it only broke if people fiddled with the optimizations before, otherwise it
>> was fine.
>>
>> Add a configure test for this, use _Static_assert() if it's available, the
>> old method if not.
>
> Here you are:
>
> diff --git a/fio-arh/compiler/compiler.h b/fio-arh/compiler/compiler.h
> index 40e857c..93fdc56 100644
> --- a/fio-arh/compiler/compiler.h
> +++ b/fio-arh/compiler/compiler.h
> @@ -1,5 +1,6 @@
> #ifndef FIO_COMPILER_H
> #define FIO_COMPILER_H
> +#include <assert.h>
>
> #if __GNUC__ >= 4
> #include "compiler-gcc4.h"
> @@ -33,6 +34,12 @@
> 1; \
> })
>
> +
> +#if (__STDC_VERSION__ >= 201112L)
> +#define compiletime_assert(condition, msg) _Static_assert(condition, msg)
> +#else
> +
> +
> #ifndef __compiletime_error
> #define __compiletime_error(message)
> #endif
> @@ -55,4 +62,7 @@
> #define compiletime_assert(condition, msg) \
> _compiletime_assert(condition, msg, __compiletime_assert_, __LINE__)
>
> +
> +#endif
> +
> #endif
>
This is not going to work for earlier compilers, in fact it breaks on
even gcc 4.9 here. As I said, this needs to be a configure test. That is
a lot more reliable than this sort of version checking.
--
Jens Axboe
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-06-29 18:29 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-06-29 14:46 competime_assert failure without -O3 optimization flag expected ? Alireza Haghdoost
2015-06-29 15:47 ` Jens Axboe
2015-06-29 15:53 ` Alireza Haghdoost
2015-06-29 15:55 ` Jens Axboe
2015-06-29 16:04 ` Jens Axboe
2015-06-29 17:42 ` Alireza Haghdoost
2015-06-29 17:50 ` Jens Axboe
2015-06-29 18:25 ` Alireza Haghdoost
2015-06-29 18:29 ` Jens Axboe [this message]
2015-06-29 18:58 ` Alireza Haghdoost
2015-06-29 19:11 ` Jens Axboe
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=55918E78.2050706@kernel.dk \
--to=axboe@kernel.dk \
--cc=fio@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=haghdoost@gmail.com \
/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