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.
Activity for alx
| Type | On... | Excerpt | Status | Date |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Edit | Post #287522 |
Post edited: |
— | about 2 years ago |
| Edit | Post #287522 |
Post edited: |
— | about 2 years ago |
| Edit | Post #287522 |
Post edited: |
— | about 2 years ago |
| Edit | Post #287522 |
Post edited: |
— | about 2 years ago |
| Edit | Post #287522 | Initial revision | — | about 2 years ago |
| Answer | — |
A: stpecpy(): Design a better string copy function that truncates After addressing @Lundin 's suggestions: - Implemented in terms of libc functions for performance. - const correctness - style improvements I have a few more that I realized after trying to replace some existing code: Much code out there has `char end = buf + nitems(buf);` (although that s... (more) |
— | about 2 years ago |
| Edit | Post #287345 |
Post edited: parentheses |
— | about 2 years ago |
| Edit | Post #287345 |
Post edited: |
— | about 2 years ago |
| Edit | Post #287345 |
Post edited: |
— | about 2 years ago |
| Edit | Post #287345 |
Post edited: decay arrays |
— | about 2 years ago |
| Edit | Post #287345 |
Post edited: |
— | about 2 years ago |
| Edit | Post #287345 | Initial revision | — | about 2 years ago |
| Answer | — |
A: How to write a macro that discards the const qualifier, for any type? I developed this macro (using GNU C) similar to C++'s constcast(). ```c #define constcast(t, p) \ ({ \ staticassert(builtintypescompatiblep(typeof(&(p)), const t)); \ ... (more) |
— | about 2 years ago |
| Comment | Post #286578 |
I was wondering about Unix systems in general, and Linux if there are differences across Unices. (more) |
— | over 2 years ago |
| Comment | Post #286628 |
...
The static assert would need to be at call site, but that would not make sure the function is not referenced anywhere else in the code. And a static assert at the A_* function definitions would always be triggered, as long as the functions are being compiled.
I only want to trigger it if t... (more) |
— | over 2 years ago |
| Comment | Post #286628 |
Okay, so the problem (the current code I'm dealing with) is:
A program might be compiled with support for feature A, or without support for it (I guess for having a slimmer/faster binary). The feature is basically some A_*() functions, and some calls to those functions from core functions.
Rig... (more) |
— | over 2 years ago |
| Edit | Post #286628 |
Post edited: tfix |
— | over 2 years ago |
| Edit | Post #286628 |
Post edited: renamed landmine() to assert_not_present_in_binary_if(), per Dirk's suggestion. |
— | over 2 years ago |
| Comment | Post #286628 |
That makes sense to me :) Thanks! (more) |
— | over 2 years ago |
| Edit | Post #286628 |
Post edited: |
— | over 2 years ago |
| Edit | Post #286628 |
Post edited: |
— | over 2 years ago |
| Edit | Post #286628 |
Post edited: |
— | over 2 years ago |
| Edit | Post #286628 |
Post edited: |
— | over 2 years ago |
| Edit | Post #286628 |
Post edited: |
— | over 2 years ago |
| Edit | Post #286628 |
Post edited: |
— | over 2 years ago |
| Edit | Post #286628 |
Post edited: |
— | over 2 years ago |
| Edit | Post #286628 | Initial revision | — | over 2 years ago |
| Answer | — |
A: Assert that some code is not present in the final binary, at compile or link time. Calling an undefined function will have that behavior at link time: `landmine.c`: ```c #ifndef CONSTANT #define CONSTANT 0 #endif #define assertnotinbinaryif(e) do \ { \ if (e) \ undefinedfunction(); \ } while (0) void undefinedfunction(void); [[gnu::noipa]] static void foo0(vo... (more) |
— | over 2 years ago |
| Edit | Post #286627 |
Post edited: |
— | over 2 years ago |
| Edit | Post #286627 |
Post edited: |
— | over 2 years ago |
| Edit | Post #286627 |
Post edited: |
— | over 2 years ago |
| Edit | Post #286627 |
Post edited: |
— | over 2 years ago |
| Edit | Post #286627 |
Post edited: |
— | over 2 years ago |
| Edit | Post #286627 |
Post edited: |
— | over 2 years ago |
| Edit | Post #286627 |
Post edited: |
— | over 2 years ago |
| Edit | Post #286627 | Initial revision | — | over 2 years ago |
| Question | — |
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) [[landmineA]] #endif static int foo(void); void bar(void) { if (CONSTANT) { foo(); } } static int foo(void) { if (... (more) |
— | over 2 years ago |
| Edit | Post #286605 |
Post edited: links |
— | over 2 years ago |
| Edit | Post #286605 |
Post edited: |
— | over 2 years ago |
| Edit | Post #286605 |
Post edited: |
— | over 2 years ago |
| Edit | Post #286605 |
Post edited: |
— | over 2 years ago |
| Edit | Post #286605 |
Post edited: |
— | over 2 years ago |
| Edit | Post #286605 |
Post edited: |
— | over 2 years ago |
| Edit | Post #286605 | Initial revision | — | over 2 years ago |
| Answer | — |
A: PGP sign emails sent with git-send-email(1) It can't be done with `git-send-email`(1), but there's a tool that integrates with it, and is very simple to use: `patatt`(1). Install the tool: ```sh $ sudo apt-get install patatt ``` And then for each repo in which you want to sign patches, run: ```sh $ cd /some/git/repo/ $ patatt ins... (more) |
— | over 2 years ago |
| Comment | Post #286593 |
Yes, that's by far the simplest one.
I was wondering if there was one that was more useful, in terms of type-generic programming, so that it would discard the `const` qualifier from any type.
`_Generic` would help, but it's still limited to the types you specify. (more) |
— | over 2 years ago |
| Comment | Post #286588 |
Considering that I'm asking this for use in a public mailing list, option 1 is not possible, option 2 defeats the simplicity and versatility of email patches, so option 3 remains.
In fact, yes, a web of trust is what I was looking for (accept more or less blindly patches from specific persons, the... (more) |
— | over 2 years ago |
| Comment | Post #286575 |
Agree. I don't even remember why that solution came through my mind. I didn't ask to close the question, just for curiosity of the answers :) (more) |
— | over 2 years ago |
| Edit | Post #286578 |
Post edited: |
— | over 2 years ago |
| Edit | Post #286578 |
Post edited: |
— | over 2 years ago |