On Fri, Nov 10, 2023 at 06:08:46AM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Thu, Nov 09, 2023 at 11:52:33AM -0800, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > > > +#ifndef BUILD_BUG_ON_MSG > > > +#define BUILD_BUG_ON_MSG(a, b) BUILD_BUG_ON(a) > > > > How difficult would it be to port the complex kernel macros that > > actually result in the message being emitted in the gcc error output? > > > > It's helpful that when the kernel build breaks, the robots will report > > exactly which field/struct/whatever tripped, which makes it easier to > > start figuring out where things went wrong on some weird architecture. > > I did try to pull the entire compile time assert machinery from > the kernels compiler_types.h in, especially as atomic.h already uses > a differnet part of it. After it pulled in two more depdendencies > I gave up, but in principle it should be entirely doable. > > > Otherwise I'm all for porting xfs_ondisk.h to xfsprogs. IIRC I tried > > that a long time ago and Dave or someone said xfs/122 was the answer. > > I'd much prefer to do it in C code and inside the libxfs we build. > If we can agree on that and on killing off xfs/122 I'll look into > porting the more complex compile time assert. > > The other option would be to switch to using static_assert from C11, > which doesn't allow a custom message, but at least the default message > isn't confusing as hell. I copy-pasta'd the whole mess from compiler_types.h and build_bug.h into include/xfs.h. It works, but it might be kinda egregious though. --D
