Communities

Writing
Writing
Codidact Meta
Codidact Meta
The Great Outdoors
The Great Outdoors
Photography & Video
Photography & Video
Scientific Speculation
Scientific Speculation
Cooking
Cooking
Electrical Engineering
Electrical Engineering
Judaism
Judaism
Languages & Linguistics
Languages & Linguistics
Software Development
Software Development
Mathematics
Mathematics
Christianity
Christianity
Code Golf
Code Golf
Music
Music
Physics
Physics
Linux Systems
Linux Systems
Power Users
Power Users
Tabletop RPGs
Tabletop RPGs
Community Proposals
Community Proposals
tag:snake search within a tag
answers:0 unanswered questions
user:xxxx search by author id
score:0.5 posts with 0.5+ score
"snake oil" exact phrase
votes:4 posts with 4+ votes
created:<1w created < 1 week ago
post_type:xxxx type of post
Search help
Notifications
Mark all as read See all your notifications »

Welcome to Software Development on Codidact!

Will you help us build our independent community of developers helping developers? We're small and trying to grow. We welcome questions about all aspects of software development, from design to code to QA and more. Got questions? Got answers? Got code you'd like someone to review? Please join us.

Review Suggested Edit

You can't approve or reject suggested edits because you haven't yet earned the Edit Posts ability.

Approved.
This suggested edit was approved and applied to the post almost 2 years ago by alx‭.

22 / 255
Assert that some code is not present in the final binary, at compile or link time.
  • I'd like to assert that some code can be optimized out, and is not present in the final binary object.
  • ```c
  • #define CONSTANT 0
  • #if (!CONSTANT)
  • [[landmine_A]]
  • #endif
  • static int foo(void);
  • void bar(void)
  • {
  • if (CONSTANT) {
  • foo();
  • }
  • }
  • static int foo(void)
  • {
  • if (!CONSTANT)
  • landmine_B();
  • }
  • ```
  • Attributes, builtins, expressions, ..., everything is fair play, as long as it _guarantees_ that the program is not built with `foo()`, unless `#define CONSTANT 1`.
  • I'd like the compiler (or linker, but preferably the compiler) to warn/error if `foo()` is used, but not if it's inside an `if (0)`.
  • In the bast, this could probably be achieved by `__builtin_unreachable();`, and the corresponding warning, but it's ignored nowadays...
  • An option (the one in use, which I'm trying to improve), is to build conditionally foo, but then I also need to use preprocessor stuff at call site, which I don't entirely like, because it hides code to the compiler, so I need to test multiple configurations.
  • I'd like to assert that some code can be optimized out, and is not present in the final binary object.
  • ```c
  • #define CONSTANT 0
  • #if (!CONSTANT)
  • [[landmine_A]]
  • #endif
  • static int foo(void);
  • void bar(void)
  • {
  • if (CONSTANT) {
  • foo();
  • }
  • }
  • static int foo(void)
  • {
  • if (!CONSTANT)
  • landmine_B();
  • }
  • ```
  • Attributes, builtins, expressions, ..., everything is fair play, as long as it _guarantees_ that the program is not built with `foo()`, unless `#define CONSTANT 1`.
  • I'd like the compiler (or linker, but preferably the compiler) to warn/error if `foo()` is used, but not if it's inside an `if (0)`.
  • In the past, this could probably be achieved by `__builtin_unreachable();`, and the corresponding warning, but it's ignored nowadays...
  • An option (the one in use, which I'm trying to improve), is to build conditionally `foo`, but then I also need to use preprocessor stuff at call site, which I don't entirely like, because it hides code to the compiler, so I need to test multiple configurations.

Suggested almost 2 years ago by Dirk Herrmann‭