delorie.com/archives/browse.cgi | search |
X-Authentication-Warning: | delorie.com: mail set sender to djgpp-bounces using -f |
X-Recipient: | djgpp AT delorie DOT com |
Message-ID: | <55556DFF.8020400@iki.fi> |
Date: | Fri, 15 May 2015 06:54:39 +0300 |
From: | "Andris Pavenis (andris DOT pavenis AT iki DOT fi)" <djgpp AT delorie DOT com> |
User-Agent: | Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.6.0 |
MIME-Version: | 1.0 |
To: | djgpp AT delorie DOT com |
Subject: | Re: bad pragma in dir.h? (and our structrure packing) |
References: | <CAA2C=vCgLHdH3BJxastGzUsJzhiRddytiYwB1MP_aaiiVpC4nA AT mail DOT gmail DOT com> <83k2wcjt8e DOT fsf AT gnu DOT org> <CAA2C=vB-YiGkyx5dJpa=hcBh0O4_NiEKh2tKm5OHyNX3vW7HsQ AT mail DOT gmail DOT com> <83bnhojnwh DOT fsf AT gnu DOT org> <CAA2C=vAEKFUktuYXGN_eYUEY0JuHQgXR_-q-N8xox=7PHPEqqw AT mail DOT gmail DOT com> <838ucsjnbl DOT fsf AT gnu DOT org> <CAA2C=vAK_T9ixd6YpNrd2LYL80Lau-Dbf+T5vo89AdYXS0WYOw AT mail DOT gmail DOT com> <83vbfvi3t1 DOT fsf AT gnu DOT org> <CAA2C=vAUa61rumTN9fyCDdtdGXzqfzZLdtz4Nw+8gWX-J-x0bg AT mail DOT gmail DOT com> <5554DF05 DOT 7020707 AT iki DOT fi> <CAA2C=vD_NVLdHdqz8RSUeU3VniwrQ85=fn+WD0+pxMbZziuyHg AT mail DOT gmail DOT com> |
In-Reply-To: | <CAA2C=vD_NVLdHdqz8RSUeU3VniwrQ85=fn+WD0+pxMbZziuyHg@mail.gmail.com> |
Reply-To: | djgpp AT delorie DOT com |
On 05/14/2015 09:05 PM, Ozkan Sezer (sezeroz AT gmail DOT com) wrote: > There are however some doubts after I took a look at STATIC_ASSERT > implementation in Boost: > > http://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_58_0/boost/static_assert.hpp > > We do not need all details (we're not interested about MSVC and like) but > even for GCC there is > more than 1 variant. > Do want to implement a public static_assert macro ? We need to be sure that such typedef will not cause warnings about unused typedef for some GCC versions. Most likely C and C++ both should be tested. boost/static_assert.hpp is good example and source information for C++. About public static assert macro. I'm not sure, Anyway there would be no harm from it > >> Looks OK with >> > With ?? > Sorry. Editing leftover acidentally survived Andris
webmaster | delorie software privacy |
Copyright © 2019 by DJ Delorie | Updated Jul 2019 |