[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <7aa74931-f558-4eb9-9083-f4d4789d4fb0@p183>
Date: Wed, 17 May 2023 09:20:10 +0300
From: Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] auto: add "auto" keyword as alias for __auto_type
On Tue, May 16, 2023 at 04:18:59PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Tue, May 16, 2023 at 2:39 PM Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> >
> > It is pretty cool and could get used a lot. Cc Linus for his thoughts?
>
> I'm not against it, although I'm also not convinced we need / want to
> convert existing users of typeof().
>
> The reason we use typeof is that that has always worked in gcc, and
> __auto_type is relatively "new" in contrast.
>
> But we require at least gcc-5.1 anyway, so it should be fine.
>
> Note that mindless conversions can be dangerous: using "typeof(x)" in
> macros may end up feeling a bit verbose, and "auto" can appear nicer,
> but the auto use needs to be *very* careful about integer promotions.
>
> For example, in
>
> #define WRAPPER(c) do { \
> typeof(c) __c = (c);
> ...
>
> it is very obvious what the type is.
>
> But while using
>
> #define WRAPPER(c) do { \
> auto __c = (c);
>
> gives you the same result with less redundancy (no need to state 'c'
> twice), if you *ever* then happen to make that an integer expression
> that is not *just* 'c' - even a trivial one - suddenly 'var' goes from
> 'char' to 'int' because of the integer expression.
>
> So __auto_type (and I agree that if we use it, we should probably just
> wrap it in an 'auto' #define, since the legacy 'auto' keyword is
> useless) can result in simpler and more obvious code, but it can also
> lead to subtle type issues that are easy to then overlook.
>
> The above is not an argument against 'auto', but it's one reason I'm
> not convinced some mindless "convert existing uses of __typeof__" is a
> good idea even if it might make some of them more legible.
>
> But I have nothing against people starting to use it in new code.
>
> And no, I don't think we should do that
>
> KBUILD_CFLAGS += -Dauto=__auto_type
>
> in the Makefile as Alexey suggests.
>
> I think this is a 'compiler_types.h' kind of thing, and goes along
> with all the other "simplied syntax" things we do (ie we redefine
> 'inline', we add "__weak" etc etc etc).
Sure. I thought about where to put it in the filesystem under nice name
but somehow completely forgot about compiler_types.h
I'll probably go through core headers at least and start conversion
myself. Expect version 2 soon.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists