> It seems to me that there is a good point to be consistent with the treatment of StaticAssertStmt and
StaticAssertExprin c.h, which have fallback implementations in *all* the configurations supported.
Consistency is good, but:
* That is beyond the scope for what I wanted my patch to achieve; my use-cases are C code only
* It is too risky for me to simply cut/paste my C version of StaticAssertDecl and hope it will work OK for C++. It
needslots of testing because there seems evidence that bad things can happen. E.g. Peter Eisentraut wrote "if you're
asking,why is the fallback implementation in C++ different from the one in C, then that's because the C variant didn't
workin C++."
~
I am happy if somebody else with more ability to test C++ properly wants to add the __cplusplus variant of the new
macro.
Meanwhile, I've attached latest re-based version of this patch.
Kind Regards.
--
Peter Smith
Fujitsu Australia
