* Add ARRAY_SIZE and CEILING utility macros
* Apply a coccinelle patch to use ARRAY_SIZE
* fix up some straggling items
* Fix 'make test:secure'
* Enhance ARRAY_SIZE macro to reject acting on pointers
The previous definition would not produce a diagnostic for
```
int *p;
size_t num_elem = ARRAY_SIZE(p)
```
but the new one will.
* explicitly get definition of ARRAY_SIZE
* Convert to ARRAY_SIZE when const is involved
The following spatch finds additional instances where the array is
const and the division is by the size of the type, not the size of
the first element:
```
@ rule5a using "empty.iso" @
type T;
const T[] E;
@@
- (sizeof(E)/sizeof(T))
+ ARRAY_SIZE(E)
@ rule6a using "empty.iso" @
type T;
const T[] E;
@@
- sizeof(E)/sizeof(T)
+ ARRAY_SIZE(E)
```
* New instances of ARRAY_SIZE added since initial spatch run
* Use `ARRAY_SIZE` in docs (found by grep)
* Manually use ARRAY_SIZE
hs_set is expected to be the same size as uint16_t, though it's made
of two 8-bit integers
* Just like char, sizeof(uint8_t) is guaranteed to be 1
This is at least true on any plausible system where qmk is actually used.
Per my understanding it's universally true, assuming that uint8_t exists:
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/48655310/can-i-assume-that-sizeofuint8-t-1
* Run qmk-format on core C files touched in this branch
Co-authored-by: Stefan Kerkmann <karlk90@pm.me>
Unfortunately, the crippled versions of “Bluepill” boards with
STM32F103C6xx chips instead of STM32F103C8xx are now sold all over the
place, sometimes advertised in a confusing way to make the difference
not noticeable until too late. Add minimal support for these MCUs in
the common “Bluepill with stm32duino” configuration, so that it could be
possible to make something useful from those boards (although fitting
QMK into the available 24 KiB of flash may be rather hard).
(In fact, I'm not sure whether the “STM32” part of the chip name is
actually correct for those boards of uncertain origin, so the onekey
board name is `bluepill_f103c6`; another reason for that name is to
match the existing `blackpill_f401` and `blackpill_f411`.)
The EEPROM emulation support is not included on purpose, because
enabling it without having a working firmware size check would be
irresponsible with such flash size (the chance that someone would build
a firmware where the EEPROM backing store ends up overlapping some
firmware code is really high). Other than that, enabling the EEPROM
emulation code is mostly trivial (the `wear_leveling` driver with the
`embedded_flash` backing store even works without any custom
configuration, although its code is significantly larger than the
`vendor` driver, which may also be important for such flash size).
