On Mon, Mar 4, 2024 at 12:49 AM Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Sun, Mar 03 2024 at 21:24, Uros Bizjak wrote: > > On Sun, Mar 3, 2024 at 9:21 PM Uros Bizjak <ubizjak@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> On Sun, Mar 3, 2024 at 9:10 PM Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > That's so sad because it would provide us compiler based __percpu > >> > validation. > >> > >> Unfortunately, the c compiler can't strip qualifiers, so typeof() is > >> of limited use also when const and volatile qualifiers are used. > >> Perhaps some extension could be introduced to c standard to provide an > >> unqualified type, e.g. typeof_unqual(). > > > > Oh, there is one in C23 [1]. > > Yes. I found it right after ranting. > > gcc >= 14 and clang >= 16 have support for it of course only when adding > -std=c2x to the command line. > > Sigh. The name space qualifiers are non standard and then the thing > which makes them more useful is hidden behind a standard. With GCC, you can use __typeof_unqual__ (please note underscores) without -std=c2x [1]: "... Alternate spelling __typeof_unqual__ is available in all C modes and provides non-atomic unqualified version of what __typeof__ operator returns..." Please also see the example in my last post. It can be compiled without -std=... [1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Typeof.html Uros.
