public inbox for gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Pedro Alves <palves@redhat.com>
To: DJ Delorie <dj@redhat.com>
Cc: eliz@gnu.org, gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org,
	gdb-patches@sourceware.org, richard.guenther@gmail.com,
	thomas@codesourcery.com
Subject: Re: MinGW compilation warnings in libiberty's xstrndup.c
Date: Mon, 22 May 2017 16:28:00 -0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <f06d1044-a266-54a9-3430-ac3e5ffad3d1@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <xn60gwicqs.fsf@greed.delorie.com>

On 05/20/2017 01:38 AM, DJ Delorie wrote:
> 
> Pedro Alves <palves@redhat.com> writes:
>> Ah, yeah.  AFAICS, all the declaration checks in libiberty.h are 
>> HAVE_DECL checks.  This suggests to me that this declaration guard 
>> should be HAVE_DECL too [1].
> 
> Except the ones in the $funcs list, which includes strnlen.  I think in
> the old days, we didn't put in declarations at all... until "char *"
> became a different size than "int" and we started needing them.

Running:

$ grep HAVE_ libiberty/config.h | sed 's/DECL_//g'| sort | uniq -c | sort -n

on the build I have handy shows:
...
      2 #define HAVE_ASPRINTF 1
      2 #define HAVE_BASENAME 1
      2 #define HAVE_CALLOC 1
      2 #define HAVE_FFS 1
      2 #define HAVE_SBRK 1
      2 #define HAVE_SNPRINTF 1
      2 #define HAVE_STRTOL 1
      2 #define HAVE_STRTOLL 1
      2 #define HAVE_STRTOUL 1
      2 #define HAVE_STRTOULL 1
      2 #define HAVE_STRVERSCMP 1
      2 #define HAVE_VASPRINTF 1

"2" means above means each FOO symbol above has both HAVE_FOO
and HAVE_DECL_FOO defines:

 $ grep "HAVE.*_SNPRINTF" config.h
 #define HAVE_DECL_SNPRINTF 1
 #define HAVE_SNPRINTF 1

> 
> So some functions in libiberty are HAVE_DECL and others are still HAVE.

But I don't see any HAVE check in libiberty.h (for function symbols),
only HAVE_DECL ones:

$ grep HAVE libiberty.h 
/* HAVE_DECL_* is a three-state macro: undefined, 0 or 1.  If it is
#if !HAVE_DECL_BASENAME
 || defined (__DragonFly__) || defined (HAVE_DECL_BASENAME) 
   autoconf which would result in HAVE_DECL_BASENAME being set.  */
#if defined (HAVE_DECL_FFS) && !HAVE_DECL_FFS
#if defined(HAVE_DECL_ASPRINTF) && !HAVE_DECL_ASPRINTF
#if !HAVE_DECL_VASPRINTF
#if defined(HAVE_DECL_SNPRINTF) && !HAVE_DECL_SNPRINTF
#if defined(HAVE_DECL_VSNPRINTF) && !HAVE_DECL_VSNPRINTF
#if defined (HAVE_DECL_STRNLEN) && !HAVE_DECL_STRNLEN
#if defined(HAVE_DECL_STRVERSCMP) && !HAVE_DECL_STRVERSCMP
#if defined(HAVE_DECL_STRTOL) && !HAVE_DECL_STRTOL
#if defined(HAVE_DECL_STRTOUL) && !HAVE_DECL_STRTOUL
#if defined(HAVE_LONG_LONG) && defined(HAVE_DECL_STRTOLL) && !HAVE_DECL_STRTOLL
#if defined(HAVE_LONG_LONG) && defined(HAVE_DECL_STRTOULL) && !HAVE_DECL_STRTOULL
#if defined(HAVE_DECL_STRVERSCMP) && !HAVE_DECL_STRVERSCMP

Nor in other headers under include/, while at it.
Are you looking elsewhere perhaps?  Based on the above, it looks to
me like the non-HAVE_DECL HAVE symbols are implementation detail
to libiberty, side effect of the checks used to determine whether
a replacement is necessary.

> 
> Ah, found it, this commit is incomplete:
> 
> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-06/msg00784.html
> 
> It changes gcc's configure but nobody else's (and now we have an answer
> to the three-year-old question "why don't we have a more liberal commit
> policy?" ;) which breaks both libiberty and libgfortran.

Yeah, that exactly the sort of thing that gets fixed by design by having
a centralized libiberty.m4 file.

> 
>> BTW, I once proposed a new libiberty.m4 file that all libiberty
>> clients would source so that these checks are all centralized.
> 
> I have no philosophical problem with that type of change, but I have the
> usual fear of touching anything in libiberty that's been around this
> long ;-)
> 
> (this bug being a prime example of how subtle an incorrect change can be)
> 
> (and honestly, my upstream attention is elsewhere these days)
> 

Thanks,
Pedro Alves

  reply	other threads:[~2017-05-22 16:19 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2017-05-08 15:37 Eli Zaretskii
2017-05-19 15:27 ` Pedro Alves
2017-05-19 15:47   ` Eli Zaretskii
2017-05-19 16:08     ` Pedro Alves
2017-05-19 22:28 ` DJ Delorie
2017-05-19 22:31   ` Pedro Alves
2017-05-19 22:56     ` DJ Delorie
2017-05-19 23:22       ` Pedro Alves
2017-05-20  1:25         ` DJ Delorie
2017-05-22 16:28           ` Pedro Alves [this message]
2017-05-26 21:49 ` DJ Delorie
2017-05-28 18:31   ` Eli Zaretskii
2017-05-31  6:17     ` DJ Delorie
2017-05-31  6:55       ` Eli Zaretskii

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=f06d1044-a266-54a9-3430-ac3e5ffad3d1@redhat.com \
    --to=palves@redhat.com \
    --cc=dj@redhat.com \
    --cc=eliz@gnu.org \
    --cc=gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org \
    --cc=gdb-patches@sourceware.org \
    --cc=richard.guenther@gmail.com \
    --cc=thomas@codesourcery.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).