Message ID | 7635632a-e375-ea34-fe4f-19cd08262ce1@redhat.com |
---|---|
State | New |
Headers | show |
On 07/06/2017 11:50 AM, Florian Weimer wrote: > assert: Suppress pedantic warning caused by statement expression > > 2017-07-06 Florian Weimer <fweimer@redhat.com> > > [BZ #21242] > * assert/assert.h [__GNUC__ && !__STRICT_ANSI__] (assert): > Suppress pedantic warning resulting from statement expression. > (__ASSERT_FUNCTION): Add missing __extendsion__. Ping? <https://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2017-07/msg00227.html> Thanks, Florian
On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 11:32 AM, Florian Weimer <fweimer@redhat.com> wrote: > On 07/06/2017 11:50 AM, Florian Weimer wrote: >> assert: Suppress pedantic warning caused by statement expression Looks good to me except ... >> (__ASSERT_FUNCTION): Add missing __extendsion__. ... typo here: __extendsion__ should be __extension__. Might be good to confirm Joseph likes this version, tho. zw
On Thu, 10 Aug 2017, Zack Weinberg wrote: > On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 11:32 AM, Florian Weimer <fweimer@redhat.com> wrote: > > On 07/06/2017 11:50 AM, Florian Weimer wrote: > >> assert: Suppress pedantic warning caused by statement expression > > Looks good to me except ... > > >> (__ASSERT_FUNCTION): Add missing __extendsion__. > > ... typo here: __extendsion__ should be __extension__. > > Might be good to confirm Joseph likes this version, tho. I have no comments on this patch version.
assert: Suppress pedantic warning caused by statement expression 2017-07-06 Florian Weimer <fweimer@redhat.com> [BZ #21242] * assert/assert.h [__GNUC__ && !__STRICT_ANSI__] (assert): Suppress pedantic warning resulting from statement expression. (__ASSERT_FUNCTION): Add missing __extendsion__. diff --git a/assert/assert.h b/assert/assert.h index 22f0195..6801cfe 100644 --- a/assert/assert.h +++ b/assert/assert.h @@ -91,13 +91,19 @@ __END_DECLS ? __ASSERT_VOID_CAST (0) \ : __assert_fail (#expr, __FILE__, __LINE__, __ASSERT_FUNCTION)) # else +/* The first occurrence of EXPR is not evaluated due to the sizeof, + but will trigger any pedantic warnings masked by the __extension__ + for the second occurrence. The explicit comparison against zero is + required to support function pointers and bit fields in this + context, and to suppress the evaluation of variable length + arrays. */ # define assert(expr) \ - ({ \ + ((void) sizeof ((expr) == 0), __extension__ ({ \ if (expr) \ ; /* empty */ \ else \ __assert_fail (#expr, __FILE__, __LINE__, __ASSERT_FUNCTION); \ - }) + })) # endif # ifdef __USE_GNU @@ -113,7 +119,7 @@ __END_DECLS C9x has a similar variable called __func__, but prefer the GCC one since it demangles C++ function names. */ # if defined __cplusplus ? __GNUC_PREREQ (2, 6) : __GNUC_PREREQ (2, 4) -# define __ASSERT_FUNCTION __PRETTY_FUNCTION__ +# define __ASSERT_FUNCTION __extension__ __PRETTY_FUNCTION__ # else # if defined __STDC_VERSION__ && __STDC_VERSION__ >= 199901L # define __ASSERT_FUNCTION __func__