[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CANiq72=UVCmjr1tpSwcoOkid5tWZirKCnV17_Peqy-LBmEQHEg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2021 20:41:45 +0200
From: Miguel Ojeda <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@...il.com>
To: Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Miguel Ojeda <ojeda@...nel.org>,
Nathan Chancellor <nathan@...nel.org>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
llvm@...ts.linux.dev, Rasmus Villemoes <linux@...musvillemoes.dk>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] compiler_types: mark __compiletime_assert failure as __noreturn
On Thu, Oct 14, 2021 at 8:33 PM Miguel Ojeda
<miguel.ojeda.sandonis@...il.com> wrote:
>
> That would be a nice to do, but I am not sure about introducing one
> more macro about this... I think it would be simpler to submit patches
> for moves into `static_assert` even if we have to "flip" the meaning.
Actually, what would be ideal is a compiler-backed lint that checks
whether it could be an `static_assert`, perhaps in clang-tidy?
It would also ensure things are kept clean.
Cheers,
Miguel
Powered by blists - more mailing lists