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>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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