Horton

Thread

Commits

  1. Portable StaticAssertExpr

  1. Portable StaticAssertExpr

    Peter Eisentraut <peter@eisentraut.org> — 2026-02-23T07:00:35Z

    The current implementation of StaticAssertExpr() uses the GCC extension 
statement expressions.

In this patch, I'm proposing a different implementation that doesn't 
require nonstandard extensions.  The trick is to put the static_assert() 
into a struct definition.  This appears to be a common way to do this. 
(See [0] for references.)

Unfortunately, MSVC before version 19.33 fails to compile this, but 
since it was fixed later, I think this was just a bug that was later 
fixed.  I'm keeping the old workaround code as a fallback for this case, 
but eventually we can remove that.

For C++, the struct trick doesn't work, but I found a different 
implementation that works on all supported compilers, using lambda 
expressions.  I found this at [1].


[0]: https://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/n3715.pdf
[1]: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/31311748

  2. Re: Portable StaticAssertExpr

    Jelte Fennema-Nio <postgres@jeltef.nl> — 2026-02-27T10:48:08Z

    On Mon, 23 Feb 2026 at 08:00, Peter Eisentraut <peter@eisentraut.org> wrote:
> In this patch, I'm proposing a different implementation that doesn't
> require nonstandard extensions.

I tried this out in one of my WIP patches for for better C++ and it
works correctly indeed.

Small nit, instead of nesting ifdefs. I think this looks a bit nicer:

# ifdef __cplusplus
...
#elif !defined(_MSC_VER) || _MSC_VER >= 1933
...
#else
...
#endif

  3. Re: Portable StaticAssertExpr

    Peter Eisentraut <peter@eisentraut.org> — 2026-03-06T08:37:50Z

    On 27.02.26 11:48, Jelte Fennema-Nio wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Feb 2026 at 08:00, Peter Eisentraut <peter@eisentraut.org> wrote:
>> In this patch, I'm proposing a different implementation that doesn't
>> require nonstandard extensions.
> 
> I tried this out in one of my WIP patches for for better C++ and it
> works correctly indeed.

Thanks, I have committed this.

> Small nit, instead of nesting ifdefs. I think this looks a bit nicer:
> 
> # ifdef __cplusplus
> ...
> #elif !defined(_MSC_VER) || _MSC_VER >= 1933
> ...
> #else
> ...
> #endif

I didn't change this, because I think it is better to keep the C code 
first and then the C++ as an alternate variant last (which is also 
existing style, at least in some parts), even if this requires some 
additional logical negations.