Re: [00/02] add BUILD_BUG_DECL assertion (for 3.4??)

[Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>]

On Mon, 2012-04-09 at 13:52 -0600, Jim Cromie wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 8, 2012 at 8:37 PM, Joe Perches <joe@perches.com> wrote:
> > Discontiguous array definitions must be ugly.
> Ugly ?
> too pejorative IMO

Ugly code is not a pejorative, it's more an
artifact of creation and always a beholder
issue.

> each array defn is a single statement.

I thought you meant the array entries not
the arrays themselves.

> there may be functions between the 2 defns being compared.
> 
> Maybe not ideal,
> 
> >
> >> Do you see advantages other than stylistic ones ?
> >
> > Not really.
> >
> > Contiguous declarations.
> > No need for other markings.
> >
> > Seems useful enough.
> >
> 
> OK.  Id expect your construct to be built upon mine,
> we'd still need to start with something.
> 
> Also, mine is usable for things yours isnt.
> I dont have a good example, but a simple/silly one is:
> 
> BUILD_BUG_DECL( wifi_channels_must_be_14,
>                   ARRAY_SIZE(channels_table) == 14 );

Do what you think best.

I think it's a solution for a relatively
minor problem.

The BUILD_BUG_DECL marking might be improved.
BUILD_BUG_DECL might be a bit short or not
descriptive enough.

Maybe BUILD_BUG_DIFF_SIZE or BUILD_BUG_SIZE_NE?