On Sunday, September 30, 2012 10:48:01 PM Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> > Perhaps we need to decouple _Static_assert support from compound
> > statement support at some point, but we will see.
> Yeah, possibly, but until we have an example of a non-gcc-compatible
> compiler that can do something equivalent, it's hard to guess how we
> might need to alter the autoconf tests. Anyway the important thing
> for now is the external specification of the macros, and I think we're
> good on that (modulo any better naming suggestions).
I thought msvc supported _Static_assert as well, but after a short search it
seems I misremembered and it only supports static_assert from C++11 (which is
plausible, because I've worked on a C++11 project which was ported to windows
). I don't know how C and C++ compilation modes are different in msvc.
I really don't understand why C and C++ standard development isn't coordinated
more... They seem to come up with annoying incompatibilities all the time.
> I'm fairly sure there are already a few cases of Asserts on
> compile-time-constant expressions, so I made sure that there was a layer
> allowing access to _Static_assert without the type-compatibility code.
> I didn't go looking for anything to convert, but I think there's some
> in the shared memory initialization code.
Definitely a sensible goal. I wasn't really sure how well the idea would be
received after I asked before and only heard echoes of my excitement and didn't
want to spend too much time on it...
Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Jeff Davis||Date: 2012-09-30 23:22:01|
|Subject: Re: Statistics and selectivity estimation for ranges|
|Previous:||From: Andres Freund||Date: 2012-09-30 21:34:09|
|Subject: Re: embedded list v3|