musl - Wrong __assert_fail(signed/unsigned) prototype

Follow @Openwall on Twitter for new release announcements and other news

[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

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.

Confused about mailing lists and their use? Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia and check out these guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.