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 E0B1F387723D; Tue,  6 Dec 2022 14:04:08 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org E0B1F387723D
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1670335448;
	bh=ByY8xoywVkgFne+Bshkpr4D4bzKCItxD8z/dMzgJVDw=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=equOEIQi6MhpcX/cxIjrQkXMJmTEDSfV1KfJZIu0O2kkvi8l4gHJ4wKlDWPIqC384
	 UhdGVL0M/9PjYlOdr+8Uvq9ARTdW3b4vCoOjQLYy8MMJ2Swew4vp2LF4RVnyyBatRl
	 Hb29VJGq9CuSYmqunAMY0kOuMSF3cNBkaU9KIgZ0=
From: "aaron at aaronballman dot com" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug c/107980] va_start does not warn about an arbitrary number of
 arguments in C2x mode
Date: Tue, 06 Dec 2022 14:04:08 +0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: c
X-Bugzilla-Version: 13.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: diagnostic
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: aaron at aaronballman dot com
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: 
Message-ID: <bug-107980-4-qEKgDs8ngz@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-107980-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-107980-4@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
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.sourceware.org>

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D107980

--- Comment #8 from Aaron Ballman <aaron at aaronballman dot com> ---
(Sorry, I meant __VA_ARGS__ and not __VA_OPT__; C23 on the brain!)

(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #6)
> Maybe add a _Static_warn builtin instead which is like _Static_assert but
> instead of an error, it is a warning.
>=20
> That is:
> #define va_start(ap, ...) (_Static_warn(__builtin_va_opt_count(__VA_OPT__)
> <=3D 1, "More than one argument supplied to the macro va_start"),
> __builtin_va_start(ap, 0))
>=20
>=20
> THe only issue is that message does not get translated.

Huh, that's a really neat idea to consider! But _Static_assert is a
declaration, not an expression, so we'd have to use a statement expression
there instead of rely on the comma operator. But I could use that for both
diagnosing passing > 2 args as well as passing < 2 args (we sometimes like =
to
warn "this feature is incompatible with standards before <blah>" in Clang).


(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #7)
> Why do you need a builtin for counting number of arguments in __VA_OPT__?
> That can be done in the preprocessor.  All one needs is 1, 2 or more
> arguments.

Yes, you can beat the preprocessor into doing this for you, but a builtin t=
hat
counts the number of arguments in __VA_ARGS__ would solve a problem users h=
ave
(https://stackoverflow.com/questions/2124339/c-preprocessor-va-args-number-=
of-arguments),
so I figured it was better than preprocessor games.=