----- On Jun 3, 2020, at 8:05 AM, Florian Weimer fweimer@xxxxxxxxxx wrote: > * Mathieu Desnoyers: > >> +#ifdef __cplusplus >> +# if __cplusplus >= 201103L >> +# define __rseq_static_assert(expr, diagnostic) static_assert (expr, >> diagnostic) >> +# define __rseq_alignof(type) alignof (type) >> +# define __rseq_alignas(x) alignas (x) >> +# define __rseq_tls_storage_class thread_local >> +# endif >> +#elif (defined __STDC_VERSION__ ? __STDC_VERSION__ : 0) >= 201112L >> +# define __rseq_static_assert(expr, diagnostic) _Static_assert (expr, >> diagnostic) >> +# define __rseq_alignof(type) _Alignof (type) >> +# define __rseq_alignas(x) _Alignas (x) >> +# define __rseq_tls_storage_class _Thread_local >> +#endif > > This does not seem to work. I get this with GCC 9: > > In file included from /tmp/cih_test_gsrKbC.cc:8:0: > ../sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/sys/rseq.h:42:50: error: attribute ignored > [-Werror=attributes] > # define __rseq_alignas(x) alignas (x) > ^ > ../sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/sys/rseq.h:122:14: note: in expansion of macro > ‘__rseq_alignas’ > uint32_t __rseq_alignas (32) version; > ^ Is that when compiling C or C++ code ? If it's C code, I would expect "_Alignas" to be used, not "alignas". Which exact version of gcc do you use ? > > In any case, these changes really have to go into the UAPI header first. > Only the __thread handling should remain. Otherwise, we'll have a tough > situation on our hands changing the UAPI header, without introducing > macro definition conflicts. I'd suggest to stick to the aligned > attribute for the time being, like the current UAPI headers. OK. Should I do that in a separate patch, or you do it on top of my patchset, or should I re-spin another round of the series ? > > The resut looks okay to me. > > I'm still waiting for feedback from other maintainers whether the level > of documentation and testing is appropriate. OK. Thanks, Mathieu -- Mathieu Desnoyers EfficiOS Inc. http://www.efficios.com
