On Fri. 6 Dec. 2024 at 12:39, David Laight <David.Laight@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> From: Vincent Mailhol
> > Sent: 05 December 2024 15:26
> >
> > On Thu. 5 Dec 2024 at 03:30, David Laight <David.Laight@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > From: Vincent Mailhol
> > > > Sent: 02 December 2024 17:33
> > > >
> > > > From: Vincent Mailhol <mailhol.vincent@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > >
> > > > For completion, add statically_false() which is the equivalent of
> > > > statically_true() except that it will return true only if the input is
> > > > known to be false at compile time.
> > >
> > > This is pretty much pointless.
> > > It is just as easy to invert the condition at the call site.
> >
> > To start with, I will argue that:
> >
> > statically_false(foo)
> >
> > is more pretty than
> >
> > statically_true(!(foo))
>
> Except that the test is more likely to be:
> statically_false(x > y)
> and the invert is then
> statically_true(x <= y)
>
> No different from C itself, there is no 'ifnot (condition) {...}'
> (don't talk to me about perl...)
No need to talk about perl, just staying in C, it has both the #ifdef
and the #ifndef directives (and since C23, it even has the #elifndef).
Regardless, this was just a nitpick. You convinced me, I will remove
both statically_false() and is_const_false() in v2.
> I suspect you need to pretty much remove all the comments that
> cross-refer to statically_true() from the other patches.
>
> So is_const_true() is just 'return true if the expression
> is a 'non-zero constant integer expression'.
No. Linus made it clear in
https://lore.kernel.org/all/CAHk-=wh5SNYdgx8-X+ggHP+ojbG2F7oyt3TLmMgqejYd5zn0Aw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/
that we need an explanation of why statically_true() may not work in
some contexts and I agree with this.
As far as I like using proper nuances between the terms 'integer
constant expression' and 'compile time constant', treating
statically_true() and is_const_true() as completely different things
as you are suggesting is not constructive. At the end, what matters
the most in a comment, is that the final user properly understands how
to use the thing correctly.
Removing the cross reference would increase the risk of people using
is_const_true() in places where it is not needed. I will keep the
cross reference to statically_true().
Yours sincerely,
Vincent Mailhol
