[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190305210517.GA10052@darth.lan>
Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2019 22:05:17 +0100
From: Sebastian Kemper <sebastian_ml@....net>
To: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: Asterisk 16 function redefines
On Tue, Mar 05, 2019 at 09:05:30PM +0100, Markus Wichmann wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 05, 2019 at 08:28:50PM +0100, Sebastian Kemper wrote:
> > #define calloc(nmemb, size) \
> > __ast_repl_calloc(nmemb, size, __FILE__, __LINE__, __PRETTY_FUNCTION__)
> > #define malloc(size) \
> > __ast_repl_malloc(size, __FILE__, __LINE__, __PRETTY_FUNCTION__)
> > #define free(ptr) \
> > __ast_free(ptr, __FILE__, __LINE__, __PRETTY_FUNCTION__)
> >
> > Compile output example:
> >
> > /home/sk/tmp/openwrt/staging_dir/toolchain-mips_24kc_gcc-7.4.0_musl/include/sched.h:76:28: error: expected declaration specifiers or '...' before string constant
> > void *calloc(size_t, size_t);
> > ^
>
> Welcome to the wonderful world of the preprocessor. The define above is
> in effect here, so the compiler never sees the valid function prototype,
> the compiler sees
>
> void *__ast_repl_calloc(size_t, size_t, "sched.h", 76, "");
>
> And can't deal with that. Maybe they should include the replacements as
> the very last thing.
Hello Markus,
It is indeed wonderful ;-)
What wonders me the most is that the same preprocessor define works fine
with the same compiler using a different libc. I tried
gcc 7.4.0 + musl 1.1.20: NOK
gcc 7.1.1 + uclibc 1.0.31: OK
gcc 8.2.0 + glibc 2.27: OK
Different gcc versions, but still.
Just read Szabolcs reply. Now it makes a bit more sense to me.
> > Regarding ASTMM_BLOCK: redefines libc functions to cause compile errors. [...]
>
> And they cause compile errors. Mission accomplished.
I don't think exactly that failure is what they had in mind :D
Thanks!
Seb
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.
