[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2011 10:51:49 -0400
From: Rich Felker <dalias@...ifal.cx>
To: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: Cleanup patches
On Tue, Jun 07, 2011 at 10:44:44AM +0200, Igmar Palsenberg wrote:
> >> this could be $(AS) -o $@ $<
> >
> > Is there a reason this is necessary or beneficial?
>
> Clang complains about them. You could ignore them if you want :
> Werror doesn't seem to be affected by this. It might use an internal
> assembler, I'm not that familiar with clang internals. Looking at
> the flags, they don't seem to matter when it comes to assembling .s
> files.
CFLAGS is there for the person compiling musl to be able to add flags.
If it were just a fixed set of flags there'd be no need for a
variable.. Thus I'm a bit hesitant to omit them without further
consideration.
> I need to check. I get out of bounds warning with this code. I'll
> check and update this code.
Yes, you'll get array bounds warnings. You can leave this warning off
unless clang is really miscompiling the code, in which case I'll have
to make some larger changes...
> > I'm guessing this might be an issue of some 32-bit x86 compilers
> > disagreeing on whether wchar_t is "int" or "long". Traditionally it
> > was "long" which worked but was obviously stupid conceptually. I don't
> > know a good way to make musl's wchar.h adapt to what the compiler
> > wants though...
>
> The cast should be OK. In cases where it is correct (and the cast
> isn't necessary), it is simply a NOOP.
No, the cast, like ALMOST ALL CASTS, hides a bug: that wchar_t is
defined in an inconsistent way. It's actively harmful.
> > Indeed, the names will all need changing if this is necessary.
>
> There is a clang bug somewhere never the less : I get weird errors
> with the macro, if I expand them directly in the code, I get a
> different error. It should give the same error in both cases. I'll
> recheck this. We might want to make those function hidden if that
> solves the problem.
Don't know what you mean by expanding them directly in the code. You
**cannot** replace the calls to the alias with calls to the dummy
function. If you could, why would I have ever created the weak aliases
to begin with?? The weak semantics are essential to the code working.
Rich
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
