[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID:
<DS7PR12MB5765F16709CDBF45D6DB0A31CBE6A@DS7PR12MB5765.namprd12.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2023 15:04:50 -0700
From: Fangrui Song <i@...kray.me>
To: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Use __builtin_FILE/__builtin_LINE if available
On Sat, Mar 4, 2023 at 7:23 PM Zhihao Yuan <lichray@...il.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Mar 2, 2023 at 12:19 AM Fangrui Song <i@...kray.me> wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Feb 27, 2023 at 2:27 PM Szabolcs Nagy <nsz@...t70.net> wrote:
>> > > > It is sad that C++ modules broke 'assert' but not surprising. Modules were largely created out of aversion to macros. This isn't something libc can fix though, I suggest a defect report against C++ instead.
>>
>> To lichray: ^^
>
>
> The definition of 'assert' is mandatory only when NDEBUG
> is defined as a macro name. 7.2.1.1 reads:
>
> "[...], if expression (which shall have a scalar type) is false (that is, compares equal to 0),
> the assert macro writes information about the particular call that failed (including the text of the
> argument, the name of the source file, the source line number, and the name of the enclosing function
> — the latter are respectively the values of the preprocessing macros __FILE__ and __LINE__ and of
> the identifier __func__) on the standard error stream in an implementation-defined format."
>
> The text in parentheses did not mandate the use of __FILE__
> and __LINE__, and C++ did not permit 'assert' not to work in
> modules. Therefore an implementation that fails to compile
> the code snippet in the original email is not conforming.
>>
>>
>> > > > Changing the semantics of assert in C seems like a bad thing to do.
>> > > >
>
>
> The semantics is unchanged, and people are doing it:
>
> Add custom ODR-safe assert. (!1166) · Merge requests · libeigen / eigen · GitLab
>
>>
>> >
>> > i dont see how that solves the fundamental problem:
>> >
>> > the *behavior* of assert changes depending on which include path is
>> > used and thus inline functions that are supposed to be equivalent
>> > aren't. (__builtin_FILE makes the pp-token sequence the same across
>> > the instances, but the actual code will have different paths, which
>> > while not an odr violation per the literal words of the spec, it
>> > clearly violates the reason the rule is there in the first place.)
>
>
> This is a different topic. In related news, CWG Issue 2678 (cplusplus.github.io)
> will likely need to be revisited (i.e., what does 'odr' mean
> is subject to change). Regardless, __builtin_FILE is
> a vendor extension and serves customers' needs in
> implementing 'assert.'
>
> --
> Zhihao Yuan, ID lichray
> The best way to predict the future is to invent it.
> _______________________________________________
Bump:)
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.
