[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       openjdk-hotspot-runtime-dev
Subject:    Re: RFR: 8067306: Improve STATIC_ASSERT
From:       Kim Barrett <kim.barrett () oracle ! com>
Date:       2014-12-19 17:16:54
Message-ID: F638F0DE-54AE-4CFB-B883-CCB55EC27C99 () oracle ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

On Dec 19, 2014, at 5:11 AM, Stefan Karlsson <stefan.karlsson@oracle.com> wrote:
> 
> Would it just not compile or would it produce the wrong answer? If it just wouldn't \
> compile I don't think we should add this extra line noise. If we encounter a \
> problem with it we'll find out and then we can add this workaround. The previous \
> code already worked with only <cond>.

Since I don’t have an exemplar of a problematic toolchain, I really have no idea.  \
Unfortunately, my awareness of this potential issue is based on having looked at a \
number of different implementations of this facility over the years that contain code \
similar to this, and none of them contained a detailed explanation, just complaints \
about ancient compilers.  OTOH, it does future-proof for C++11 features, as if *that* \
will ever be a worry.


[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]