Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] <sys/param.h>: Add nitems() and snitems() macros
To:     Jonathan Wakely <jwakely@redhat.com>
Cc:     fweimer@redhat.com, linux-man@vger.kernel.org,
        libc-alpha@sourceware.org, gcc@gcc.gnu.org, rusty@rustcorp.com.au,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, libstdc++@gcc.gnu.org,
        libc-coord@lists.openwall.com, enh@google.com
References: <20200922145844.31867-1-colomar.6.4.3@gmail.com>
 <20200925132000.235033-1-colomar.6.4.3@gmail.com>
 <f6257d7d-1cea-b45c-a858-b80bbc1f18b1@gmail.com>
 <20200925144822.GM6061@redhat.com>
 <22c110fe-4c92-e5e6-dc35-dbf00a97cfa2@gmail.com>
 <20200925174252.GO6061@redhat.com>
From:   Alejandro Colomar <colomar.6.4.3@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <a7f33e89-4815-2210-7627-14757198a666@gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 25 Sep 2020 19:46:04 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/68.12.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20200925174252.GO6061@redhat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk


On 2020-09-25 19:39, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
 > Yes, I'm aware of all the rationale. I already said that it makes
 > sense in C++ where you have generic code. I am not convinced that it's
 > necessary to add to <sys/param.h> when all it does is a cast from
 > size_t to ptrdiff_t.
 >

While I would prefer a signed version, I could live with only 
'nitems()'.  Having all the __must_be_array thing is the most important 
part.

On 2020-09-25 19:42, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On 25/09/20 18:30 +0200, Alejandro Colomar via Libstdc++ wrote:
>> I have a similar number of ARRAY_SIZE() and ARRAY_SSIZE().
>> I could have '#define snitems(arr) ((ptrdiff_t)nitems(arr))' in my 
>> projects,
>> but is it really necessary?
> 
> The barrier for adding something to glibc headers should be a LOT
> higher than "I could [do it in my own code], but is it really
> necessary?"
> 
>> Did I convince you? :-)
> 
> No.
> 
> 

Well, you convinced me :)

I'll rewrite the patch, and the problem about <stddef.h> will vanish.

Cheers,

Alex