scripts/unifdef: avoid constexpr keyword

Commit Message

Arnd Bergmann March 20, 2024, 5:59 p.m. UTC

From: Arnd Bergmann <[e-mail]>

Starting with c23, 'constexpr' is a keyword in C like in C++ and cannot
be used as an identifier:

scripts/unifdef.c:206:25: error: 'constexpr' can only be used in variable declarations
  206 | static bool             constexpr;              /* constant #if expression */
      |                         ^
scripts/unifdef.c:880:13: error: expected identifier or '('
  880 |                 constexpr = false;
      |                           ^

Rename this instance to allow changing to C23 at some point in the future.

Fixes: d8379ab1dde3 ("unifdef: update to upstream revision 1.190")
Cc: Masahiro Yamada <[e-mail]>
Cc: Nathan Chancellor <[e-mail]>
Cc: Nicolas Schier <[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail]
Signed-off-by: Arnd Bergmann <[e-mail]>
---
 scripts/unifdef.c | 10 +++++-----
 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)

Comments

Tony Finch March 21, 2024, 3:53 p.m. UTC | #1

Arnd Bergmann <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> Starting with c23, 'constexpr' is a keyword in C like in C++ and cannot
> be used as an identifier:

So it is! Can you please incorporate the fixup patch below? Other than
that, LGTM.

Reviewed-By: Tony Finch <[e-mail]>

PS. I've been reviewing some other details of C23 recently. According to
the Editor's Report https://open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/n3221.htm
the working draft that is closest to the official C23 Draft International
Standard is https://open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/n3220.pdf
(There were significant changes and fixes even quite late in the process
so don't rely on earlier versions - I encoutered a bug when I did!)


--- scripts/unifdef.c
+++ scripts/unifdef.c
@@ -819,7 +819,7 @@ static const struct ops {
 /*
  * Function for evaluating the innermost parts of expressions,
  * viz. !expr (expr) number defined(symbol) symbol
- * We reset the constexpr flag in the last two cases.
+ * We reset the constexpression flag in the last two cases.
  */
 static Linetype
 eval_unary(const struct ops *ops, int *valp, const char **cpp)

Masahiro Yamada March 29, 2024, 9:59 a.m. UTC | #2

On Thu, Mar 21, 2024 at 3:01 AM Arnd Bergmann <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> From: Arnd Bergmann <[e-mail]>
>
> Starting with c23, 'constexpr' is a keyword in C like in C++ and cannot
> be used as an identifier:
>
> scripts/unifdef.c:206:25: error: 'constexpr' can only be used in variable declarations
>   206 | static bool             constexpr;              /* constant #if expression */
>       |                         ^
> scripts/unifdef.c:880:13: error: expected identifier or '('
>   880 |                 constexpr = false;
>       |                           ^
>
> Rename this instance to allow changing to C23 at some point in the future.
>
> Fixes: d8379ab1dde3 ("unifdef: update to upstream revision 1.190")

This can be a problem only for future kernels.
Is it worth adding Fixes?

Even if the kernel bumps to C23 at some point,
such a patch will not be backported.

Patch

diff --git a/scripts/unifdef.c b/scripts/unifdef.c
index db00e3e30a59..1cc31448fd10 100644
--- a/scripts/unifdef.c
+++ b/scripts/unifdef.c
@@ -203,7 +203,7 @@  static int              depth;			/* current #if nesting */
 static int              delcount;		/* count of deleted lines */
 static unsigned         blankcount;		/* count of blank lines */
 static unsigned         blankmax;		/* maximum recent blankcount */
-static bool             constexpr;		/* constant #if expression */
+static bool             constexpression;	/* constant #if expression */
 static bool             zerosyms = true;	/* to format symdepth output */
 static bool             firstsym;		/* ditto */
 
@@ -877,7 +877,7 @@  eval_unary(const struct ops *ops, int *valp, const char **cpp)
 		cp = skipcomment(cp);
 		if (defparen && *cp++ != ')')
 			return (LT_ERROR);
-		constexpr = false;
+		constexpression = false;
 	} else if (!endsym(*cp)) {
 		debug("eval%d symbol", ops - eval_ops);
 		sym = findsym(cp);
@@ -895,7 +895,7 @@  eval_unary(const struct ops *ops, int *valp, const char **cpp)
 			lt = *valp ? LT_TRUE : LT_FALSE;
 			cp = skipargs(cp);
 		}
-		constexpr = false;
+		constexpression = false;
 	} else {
 		debug("eval%d bad expr", ops - eval_ops);
 		return (LT_ERROR);
@@ -955,10 +955,10 @@  ifeval(const char **cpp)
 	int val = 0;
 
 	debug("eval %s", *cpp);
-	constexpr = killconsts ? false : true;
+	constexpression = killconsts ? false : true;
 	ret = eval_table(eval_ops, &val, cpp);
 	debug("eval = %d", val);
-	return (constexpr ? LT_IF : ret == LT_ERROR ? LT_IF : ret);
+	return (constexpression ? LT_IF : ret == LT_ERROR ? LT_IF : ret);
 }
 
 /*