This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
[PATCH] assert: Suppress pedantic warning caused by statement expression [BZ# 21242]
- From: Florian Weimer <fweimer at redhat dot com>
- To: Joseph Myers <joseph at codesourcery dot com>
- Cc: Justin Brewer <jzb0012 at auburn dot edu>, libc-alpha at sourceware dot org, Siddhesh Poyarekar <siddhesh at gotplt dot org>
- Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2017 16:00:12 +0200
- Subject: [PATCH] assert: Suppress pedantic warning caused by statement expression [BZ# 21242]
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- Authentication-results: ext-mx09.extmail.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com
- Authentication-results: ext-mx09.extmail.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=fweimer at redhat dot com
- Dkim-filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 mx1.redhat.com F26544ACC7
- Dmarc-filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mx1.redhat.com F26544ACC7
- References: <6619e7e2-248e-08bc-6dc5-7b4d11bea3df@auburn.edu> <925e8a81-86f9-78a6-1578-660c04e39e3c@redhat.com> <alpine.DEB.2.20.1703211617300.8480@digraph.polyomino.org.uk> <b3e54310-9e08-c0fb-b0ee-b2a07711ef9a@redhat.com> <alpine.DEB.2.20.1706261055440.21187@digraph.polyomino.org.uk>
On 06/26/2017 12:56 PM, Joseph Myers wrote:
> On Sun, 25 Jun 2017, Florian Weimer wrote:
>
>> I think we can use __extension__ if we also expand the expression
>> without __extension__ in an unevaluated context. The tricky part is to
>> find one that is independent of GNU extensions.
>> Perhaps this would work?
>>
>> # define assert(expr) \
>> ((void) sizeof ((expr) == 0), __extension__ ({ \
>> if (expr) \
>> ; /* empty */ \
>> else \
>> __assert_fail (#expr, __FILE__, __LINE__, __FUNCTION__); \
>> }))
>>
>> sizeof suppresses the evaluation of the first occurrence of expr. The
>> comparison is needed because sizeof cannot be applied to function
>> pointers and bitfields. C11 says that expr is compared to zero, so the
>> (expr) == 0 expression is well-formed.
>>
>> What do you think? Should we make this change?
>
> I think that's reasonable (appropriately commented to explain why it's
> done that way).
This is what I came up with as a patch.
I would consider this still appropriate during the freeze. It's
something we'd backport to glibc 2.25, too.
Thanks,
Florian