From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.linux.lib.musl.general/4194 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Rich Felker Newsgroups: gmane.linux.lib.musl.general Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] shadow: Implement putspent Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2013 11:36:40 -0500 Message-ID: <20131106163640.GN24286@brightrain.aerifal.cx> References: <20131105192416.GE24286@brightrain.aerifal.cx> <1383690600-24170-1-git-send-email-mforney@mforney.org> <20131105233148.GJ24286@brightrain.aerifal.cx> <1383744054.23727.44.camel@eris.loria.fr> Reply-To: musl@lists.openwall.com NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1383755809 12820 80.91.229.3 (6 Nov 2013 16:36:49 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2013 16:36:49 +0000 (UTC) To: musl@lists.openwall.com Original-X-From: musl-return-4198-gllmg-musl=m.gmane.org@lists.openwall.com Wed Nov 06 17:36:55 2013 Return-path: Envelope-to: gllmg-musl@plane.gmane.org Original-Received: from mother.openwall.net ([195.42.179.200]) by plane.gmane.org with smtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Ve66A-0003LN-MO for gllmg-musl@plane.gmane.org; Wed, 06 Nov 2013 17:36:54 +0100 Original-Received: (qmail 13365 invoked by uid 550); 6 Nov 2013 16:36:53 -0000 Mailing-List: contact musl-help@lists.openwall.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: Original-Received: (qmail 13357 invoked from network); 6 Nov 2013 16:36:53 -0000 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1383744054.23727.44.camel@eris.loria.fr> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.linux.lib.musl.general:4194 Archived-At: On Wed, Nov 06, 2013 at 02:20:54PM +0100, Jens Gustedt wrote: > Hi Rich, > > Am Dienstag, den 05.11.2013, 18:31 -0500 schrieb Rich Felker: > > While it doesn't really matter in this file, in general, macro > > arguments should be properly parenthesized, as in: > > > +#define NUM(n) ((n) == -1 ? 0 : -1), ((n) == -1 ? 0 : (n)) > > for such a macro that is replacing two function arguments, I'd go for > a much more descriptive name, something like NUM2ARGS I agree with you in principle, but I don't think it really matters here. The file is small enough that you see both the definition and usage together. A better improvement might be adding a comment that the macro expands to two arguments to fprintf, a precision and a value, but we're getting well into bikeshed territory here. :-) > > +#define STR(s) ((s) ? (s) : "") > > in the context of the actual function that would certainly overkill, > but generally it is not a good idea to mix user strings and string > literals without consting them. So in a general context I'd go for > something like > > #define STR(S) ((char const*)((S) ? (S) : "")) > > or even > > #define STR(S) ((S) ? (char const*){ (S) } : "") > > to have a better type check for the argument I disagree with this change. The type of string literals is char *, not const char *, so it's not a type consistency issue. Even if it were, the ?: operator handles the type correctly anyway. My view is that casts are a code smell, and no-op casts are harmful in that they obfuscate the correctness of types (since the reader has to question whether the cast is hiding a type mismatch). Rich