From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48)
 id D8C143847825; Fri, 18 Jun 2021 14:38:48 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org D8C143847825
From: "vincent-gcc at vinc17 dot net" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug c/101125] New: warn when a construct would become invalid if a
 function were replaced by a function-like macro
Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2021 14:38:48 +0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: new
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: c
X-Bugzilla-Version: 11.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: 
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: vincent-gcc at vinc17 dot net
X-Bugzilla-Status: UNCONFIRMED
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: bug_id short_desc product version bug_status
 bug_severity priority component assigned_to reporter target_milestone
Message-ID: <bug-101125-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-BeenThere: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Gcc-bugs mailing list <gcc-bugs.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://gcc.gnu.org/mailman/options/gcc-bugs>,
 <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-bugs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://gcc.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gcc-bugs>,
 <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2021 14:38:49 -0000

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D101125

            Bug ID: 101125
           Summary: warn when a construct would become invalid if a
                    function were replaced by a function-like macro
           Product: gcc
           Version: 11.0
            Status: UNCONFIRMED
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P3
         Component: c
          Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
          Reporter: vincent-gcc at vinc17 dot net
  Target Milestone: ---

In the standard C library and some other libraries (like GNU MPFR), functio=
ns
may be replaced by function-like macros with the same behavior. So, in orde=
r to
detect potential portability issues, GCC should provide a warning to check
whether a construct used with a function call would become invalid if the
function were replaced by a macro.

Such a difference can at least come from the use of the comma in some
expressions. Example:

struct s { int a, b; };
void f (int);
#define F(X) f(X)
void g (void)
{
  f ((struct s){0,1}.a);
  F ((struct s){0,1}.a);
}

The call to f is valid, but the use of the macro yields an error because the
preprocessor assumes that there are 2 arguments in the call: "(struct s){0"=
 and
"1}.a". Here, one should use additional parentheses:

  F (((struct s){0,1}.a));

AFAIK, the library (which provides the function and the macro in a header f=
ile)
cannot do anything to avoid such an error; only the user can avoid it, but =
he
may not be aware of the issue as long as only a function is provided. Hence=
 the
usefulness of the proposed warning.=