Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2019 14:15:27 +0300 From: Леонид Юрьев <leo@...iev.ru> To: musl@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Wrong __assert_fail(signed/unsigned) prototype Hi! LSB 1.3...3.0 as well as ISO POSIX (2003) specifies: void __assert_fail(const char *assertion, const char *file, unsigned int line, const char *function); But now MUSL defines: _Noreturn void __assert_fail (const char *, const char *, int, const char *); I.e. the problem is "int" and "unsigned int" type difference for "line" argument. This creates build problems if the __assert_fail() prototype is also defined in the application source code. Of cause, such (re)definition of __assert_fail() is not the good solution, but the simplest, since the __assert_fail() prototype may not be defined. However, I think it's better to align __assert_fail() with POSIX and LSB specifications. Regards, Leonid.
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.