Awesome work! Thank you

In D57463#1316355, @bz wrote:

If you want these reviewed can you in the future please add linuxkpi to reviewers and not to subscribers?

The ((void)0) approach works but it drops the arity check and risks silent bugs. I did this for modes prior to C++20 mainly because I wasn’t sure if there were a better way. But for C++20 and later I still believe we can craft a solid solution. I’m not available today and will likely continue tomorrow, so I’d appreciate it if you could allow me a day or two. I do my best to deliver ASAP. In the meantime, please accept my apologies for any inconvenience.

In D57449#1316356, @fuz wrote:

This is incorrect. C23 requires that assert() only takes a single parameter. Your variant removes the enforcement of this invariant. The submitter says he has a fix that I hope preserves the argument count check, let's see if he comes up with something soon.

Move C case back

This is incorrect. C23 requires that assert() only takes a single parameter. Your variant removes the enforcement of this invariant. The submitter says he has a fix that I hope preserves the argument count check, let's see if he comes up with something soon.

If you want these reviewed can you in the future please add linuxkpi to reviewers and not to subscribers?

Clock usage looks good for me.

drop comment

Accumualate bytes instead of using ftell
Also, reflects jrm@'s comment

rf