linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] checkpatch: don't complain on _Static_assert and

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <713eb42d-114b-4738-92ab-242d73fe71ce@prevas.dk>
Date:   Wed, 29 Nov 2023 09:58:23 +0100
From:   Rasmus Villemoes <rasmus.villemoes@...vas.dk>
To:     Przemek Kitszel <przemyslaw.kitszel@...el.com>,
        Andy Whitcroft <apw@...onical.com>,
        Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     Jacob Keller <jacob.e.keller@...el.com>,
        Dwaipayan Ray <dwaipayanray1@...il.com>,
        Lukas Bulwahn <lukas.bulwahn@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] checkpatch: don't complain on _Static_assert and _Generic
 use

On 27/11/2023 16.18, Przemek Kitszel wrote:
> Improve CamelCase recognition logic to avoid reporting on _Static_assert()
> and _Generic() use.
> 

_Generic I understand, because that can reasonably be used in new macros.

But is there ever any reason for introducing new uses of _Static_assert
when we already have the static_assert() wrapper? Shouldn't people use
that instead of the raw keyword?

> Other C keywords, such as _Bool, are intentionally omitted, as those
> should be rather avoided in new source code.

... in exactly the same way that we have 'typedef _Bool bool;' and then
prefer people to spell it 'bool'.

Rasmus