diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'meta/recipes-core/glibc/glibc')
-rw-r--r-- | meta/recipes-core/glibc/glibc/0026-assert-Suppress-pedantic-warning-caused-by-statement.patch | 90 |
1 files changed, 0 insertions, 90 deletions
diff --git a/meta/recipes-core/glibc/glibc/0026-assert-Suppress-pedantic-warning-caused-by-statement.patch b/meta/recipes-core/glibc/glibc/0026-assert-Suppress-pedantic-warning-caused-by-statement.patch deleted file mode 100644 index b2bb96b818..0000000000 --- a/meta/recipes-core/glibc/glibc/0026-assert-Suppress-pedantic-warning-caused-by-statement.patch +++ /dev/null @@ -1,90 +0,0 @@ -From 037283cbc74739b72f36dfec827d120faa243406 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 -From: Florian Weimer <fweimer at redhat dot com> -Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2017 11:50:55 +0200 -Subject: [PATCH 26/26] assert: Suppress pedantic warning caused by statement - expression [BZ# 21242] - -On 07/05/2017 10:15 PM, Zack Weinberg wrote: -> On Wed, Jul 5, 2017 at 11:51 AM, Florian Weimer <fweimer@redhat.com> wrote: ->> On 07/05/2017 05:46 PM, Zack Weinberg wrote: ->>> A problem occurs to me: expressions involving VLAs _are_ evaluated ->>> inside sizeof. ->> ->> The type of the sizeof argument would still be int (due to the ->> comparison against 0), so this doesn't actually occur. -> -> I rechecked what C99 says about sizeof and VLAs, and you're right - -> the operand of sizeof is only evaluated when sizeof is _directly_ -> applied to a VLA. So this is indeed safe, but I think this wrinkle -> should be mentioned in the comment. Perhaps -> -> /* The first occurrence of EXPR is not evaluated due to the sizeof, -> but will trigger any pedantic warnings masked by the __extension__ -> for the second occurrence. The explicit comparison against zero -> ensures that sizeof is not directly applied to a function pointer or -> bit-field (which would be ill-formed) or VLA (which would be evaluated). */ -> -> zw - -What about the attached patch? - -Siddhesh, is this okay during the freeze? I'd like to backport it to -2.25 as well. - -Thanks, -Florian - -assert: Suppress pedantic warning caused by statement expression - -2017-07-06 Florian Weimer <fweimer@redhat.com> - - [BZ #21242] - * assert/assert.h [__GNUC__ && !__STRICT_ANSI__] (assert): - Suppress pedantic warning resulting from statement expression. - (__ASSERT_FUNCTION): Add missing __extendsion__. ---- - -Upstream-Status: Submitted -Signed-off-by: Khem Raj <raj.khem@gmail.com> - - assert/assert.h | 12 +++++++++--- - 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) - -diff --git a/assert/assert.h b/assert/assert.h -index 22f019537c..6801cfeb10 100644 ---- a/assert/assert.h -+++ b/assert/assert.h -@@ -91,13 +91,19 @@ __END_DECLS - ? __ASSERT_VOID_CAST (0) \ - : __assert_fail (#expr, __FILE__, __LINE__, __ASSERT_FUNCTION)) - # else -+/* The first occurrence of EXPR is not evaluated due to the sizeof, -+ but will trigger any pedantic warnings masked by the __extension__ -+ for the second occurrence. The explicit comparison against zero is -+ required to support function pointers and bit fields in this -+ context, and to suppress the evaluation of variable length -+ arrays. */ - # define assert(expr) \ -- ({ \ -+ ((void) sizeof ((expr) == 0), __extension__ ({ \ - if (expr) \ - ; /* empty */ \ - else \ - __assert_fail (#expr, __FILE__, __LINE__, __ASSERT_FUNCTION); \ -- }) -+ })) - # endif - - # ifdef __USE_GNU -@@ -113,7 +119,7 @@ __END_DECLS - C9x has a similar variable called __func__, but prefer the GCC one since - it demangles C++ function names. */ - # if defined __cplusplus ? __GNUC_PREREQ (2, 6) : __GNUC_PREREQ (2, 4) --# define __ASSERT_FUNCTION __PRETTY_FUNCTION__ -+# define __ASSERT_FUNCTION __extension__ __PRETTY_FUNCTION__ - # else - # if defined __STDC_VERSION__ && __STDC_VERSION__ >= 199901L - # define __ASSERT_FUNCTION __func__ --- -2.13.3 - |