On Wed, 31 Jul 2024 at 01:10, David Laight <David.Laight@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> The __UNIQUE_ID_() define just seemed excessive - especially
> since all compiler versions support __COUNTER__.
Yes, we could probably just simplify it.
The thing is, "all compiler versions support __COUNTER__" wasn't
historically true.
We used to have this:
/* Not-quite-unique ID. */
#ifndef __UNIQUE_ID
# define __UNIQUE_ID(prefix) __PASTE(__PASTE(__UNIQUE_ID_, prefix), __LINE__)
#endif
because __COUNTER__ is such a new-fangled thing and only got
introduced in gcc-4 or something like that.
So that "prefix" literally exists because it literally wasn't unique
enough without it.
And the "__UNIQUE_ID_" thing is probably because that way it was
clearer what was going on when something went wrong.
But together they really end up being a somewhat unreadable mess.
That said, I did end up liking the "prefix" part when looking at
expansions, because it helps show "which" expansion it is (ie "x_123"
and "y_124" were clearer than just some pure counter value that
doesn't have any relationship to the origin at all in the name).
But I did change it to "x_" from "__x", because that way it was
minimal, yet clearly separate from the counter number (ie "x_123" was
better than "__x123").
It was the repeated useless "__UNIQUE_ID_" part of the expansion that
ended up annoying. Not quite annoying enough to change it to just
"___" or something, but I was close.
Linus
