On Mon, Mar 04 2024 at 06:42, Uros Bizjak wrote: > 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=... With gcc >= 14. Not so with clang...
