Re: [PATCH] internal_error: remove need to pass __FILE__/__LINE__

[Simon Marchi <simark@simark.ca>]

On 2022-10-17 15:26, Pedro Alves wrote:
> On 2022-10-17 7:59 p.m., Simon Marchi wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 2022-10-17 14:50, Pedro Alves wrote:
>>> Currently, every internal_error call must be passed __FILE__/__LINE__
>>> explicitly, like:
>>>
>>>   internal_error (__FILE__, __LINE__, "foo %d", var);
>>>
>>> The need to pass in explicit __FILE__/__LINE__ is there probably
>>> because the function predates widespread and portable variadic macros
>>> availability.  We can use variadic macros nowadays, and in fact, we
>>> already use them in several places, including the related
>>> gdb_assert_not_reached.
>>>
>>> So this patch renames the internal_error function to something else,
>>> and then reimplements internal_error as a variadic macro that expands
>>> __FILE__/__LINE__ itself.
>>>
>>> The result is that we now should call internal_error like so:
>>>
>>>   internal_error ("foo %d", var);
>>>
>>> Likewise for internal_warning.
>>>
>>> The patch adjusts all calls sites.  99% of the adjustments were done
>>> with a perl/sed script.
>>>
>>> The non-mechanical changes are in gdbsupport/errors.h,
>>> gdbsupport/gdb_assert.h, and gdb/gdbarch.py.
>>
>> I think it's a good change, but as a result gdb_assert_not_reached and
>> internal_error become essentially the same thing.  Can we just keep one?
> 
> Most probably.  I prefer keeping internal_error for it being more pervasive
> and older.  gdb_assert_not_reached is a more recent addition.

Fine with me.

>> The only difference is that gdb_assert_not_reached includes the
>> function name, but I don't think it's an important difference.  I think
>> we could switch to a single one that does include the function name.
> 
> I don't think it needs to be in this patch, though?
> 
> This one is just making internal_error more convenient to call.  We can
> always look at doing something to its internals separately.

Sure, it's just an idea for eventually.

Simon