[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180810155906.GC1878@brightrain.aerifal.cx>
Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2018 11:59:06 -0400
From: Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org>
To: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: boost 1.67 with static_assert(!WIFSIGNALED(0x7f))
On Fri, Aug 10, 2018 at 05:45:33PM +0200, Natanael Copa wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Boost 1.67 introduced this compile time assert:
> https://github.com/boostorg/process/commit/6625999765bbe24cc9e255bdeb284ea82d5f2258
>
>
> > static_assert(!WIFEXITED(still_active) && !WIFSIGNALED(still_active), "Internal Error");
As noted on #musl, I don't think this is even valid as a static
assertion, because POSIX imposes no requirement that these macros
produce constant expressions. As far as I can tell they could be
implemented as function calls.
> This was apparently introduced to prevent that WIFSIGNALED clashes with WIFSTOPPED.
This seems correct -- POSIX defines WIFSIGNALED only for when the
process terminated with a signal, which is of course mutually
exclusive with being stopped.
> On musl this results into:
>
> /usr/include/boost/process/detail/posix/is_running.hpp:20:1: error: static assertion failed: Internal Error
> static_assert(!WIFEXITED(still_active) && !WIFSIGNALED(still_active), "Internal Error");
> ^~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> I wonder if the boost change is wrong or if musl WIFSIGNALED(0x7f) is buggy?
I'll have to look into whether 0x7f is a value that can actually be
seen. If so, one or both of the musl macros has a bug. If not, this
seems like a spurious failure based on incorrect assumptions in
boost. I'll follow up after doing some more research if nobody else
gets to it first.
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.
