* [musl] [PATCH] Use __builtin_FILE/__builtin_LINE if available
@ 2023-02-18 1:33 Fangrui Song
2023-02-18 2:03 ` Rich Felker
0 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread
From: Fangrui Song @ 2023-02-18 1:33 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: musl; +Cc: Fangrui Song
C++ inline functions are requred to have exact same sequence of tokens
in every translation unit, but __FILE__ and __LINE__ may expand to
different tokens. The ODR violatioin is usually benign, but it can lead
to errors when C++20 modules are used.
echo 'import B; import C; int main() { foo(); }' > A.cc
cat > B.ccm <<'eof'
module;
#include <assert.h>
export module B; export inline void foo() { assert(1); }
eof
cat > C.ccm <<'eof'
module;
#include <assert.h>
export module C; export inline void foo() { assert(1); }
eof
clang -std=c++20 --precompile B.ccm -o B.pcm
clang -std=c++20 --precompile C.ccm -o C.pcm
clang -std=c++20 -fprebuilt-module-path=. A.cc B.pcm C.pcm -o A
/tmp/d/C.ccm:3:37: error: 'foo' has different definitions in different modules; definition in module 'C' first difference is function body
export module C; export inline void foo() { assert(1); }
~~~~~~~~~~~~^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
/tmp/d/B.ccm:3:37: note: but in 'B' found a different body
export module B; export inline void foo() { assert(1); }
~~~~~~~~~~~~^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Fix this by preferring __builtin_FILE/__builtin_LINE which do not need
preprocessing.
---
include/assert.h | 6 ++++++
1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)
diff --git a/include/assert.h b/include/assert.h
index d14ec94e..b209c2ae 100644
--- a/include/assert.h
+++ b/include/assert.h
@@ -4,6 +4,12 @@
#ifdef NDEBUG
#define assert(x) (void)0
+#elif defined(__has_builtin)
+#if __has_builtin(__builtin_FILE)
+#define assert(x) ((void)((x) || (__assert_fail(#x, __builtin_FILE(), __builtin_LINE(), __func__),0)))
+#else
+#define assert(x) ((void)((x) || (__assert_fail(#x, __FILE__, __LINE__, __func__),0)))
+#endif
#else
#define assert(x) ((void)((x) || (__assert_fail(#x, __FILE__, __LINE__, __func__),0)))
#endif
--
2.39.GIT
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: [musl] [PATCH] Use __builtin_FILE/__builtin_LINE if available
2023-02-18 1:33 [musl] [PATCH] Use __builtin_FILE/__builtin_LINE if available Fangrui Song
@ 2023-02-18 2:03 ` Rich Felker
2023-02-18 2:53 ` Fangrui Song
0 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread
From: Rich Felker @ 2023-02-18 2:03 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Fangrui Song; +Cc: musl
On Fri, Feb 17, 2023 at 05:33:33PM -0800, Fangrui Song wrote:
> C++ inline functions are requred to have exact same sequence of tokens
> in every translation unit, but __FILE__ and __LINE__ may expand to
> different tokens. The ODR violatioin is usually benign, but it can lead
> to errors when C++20 modules are used.
>
> echo 'import B; import C; int main() { foo(); }' > A.cc
> cat > B.ccm <<'eof'
> module;
> #include <assert.h>
> export module B; export inline void foo() { assert(1); }
> eof
> cat > C.ccm <<'eof'
> module;
> #include <assert.h>
> export module C; export inline void foo() { assert(1); }
> eof
> clang -std=c++20 --precompile B.ccm -o B.pcm
> clang -std=c++20 --precompile C.ccm -o C.pcm
> clang -std=c++20 -fprebuilt-module-path=. A.cc B.pcm C.pcm -o A
>
> /tmp/d/C.ccm:3:37: error: 'foo' has different definitions in different modules; definition in module 'C' first difference is function body
> export module C; export inline void foo() { assert(1); }
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> /tmp/d/B.ccm:3:37: note: but in 'B' found a different body
> export module B; export inline void foo() { assert(1); }
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> Fix this by preferring __builtin_FILE/__builtin_LINE which do not need
> preprocessing.
> ---
> include/assert.h | 6 ++++++
> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/include/assert.h b/include/assert.h
> index d14ec94e..b209c2ae 100644
> --- a/include/assert.h
> +++ b/include/assert.h
> @@ -4,6 +4,12 @@
>
> #ifdef NDEBUG
> #define assert(x) (void)0
> +#elif defined(__has_builtin)
> +#if __has_builtin(__builtin_FILE)
> +#define assert(x) ((void)((x) || (__assert_fail(#x, __builtin_FILE(), __builtin_LINE(), __func__),0)))
> +#else
> +#define assert(x) ((void)((x) || (__assert_fail(#x, __FILE__, __LINE__, __func__),0)))
> +#endif
> #else
> #define assert(x) ((void)((x) || (__assert_fail(#x, __FILE__, __LINE__, __func__),0)))
> #endif
> --
> 2.39.GIT
It seems like use of assert here violates the ODR and is thus an
application error, no? In particular, it produces multiple definitions
that have differing behaviors, leaving which one actually gets used up
to the linker. Without the above change, LTO is able to diagnose the
error; with the change; it's silently deferred until runtime (where
the assertion violation message, of produced, will likely indicate the
wrong location).
Rich
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: [musl] [PATCH] Use __builtin_FILE/__builtin_LINE if available
2023-02-18 2:03 ` Rich Felker
@ 2023-02-18 2:53 ` Fangrui Song
2023-02-18 12:17 ` Jon Chesterfield
0 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread
From: Fangrui Song @ 2023-02-18 2:53 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: musl
On Fri, Feb 17, 2023 at 6:03 PM Rich Felker <dalias@libc.org> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Feb 17, 2023 at 05:33:33PM -0800, Fangrui Song wrote:
> > C++ inline functions are requred to have exact same sequence of tokens
> > in every translation unit, but __FILE__ and __LINE__ may expand to
> > different tokens. The ODR violatioin is usually benign, but it can lead
> > to errors when C++20 modules are used.
> >
> > echo 'import B; import C; int main() { foo(); }' > A.cc
> > cat > B.ccm <<'eof'
> > module;
> > #include <assert.h>
> > export module B; export inline void foo() { assert(1); }
> > eof
> > cat > C.ccm <<'eof'
> > module;
> > #include <assert.h>
> > export module C; export inline void foo() { assert(1); }
> > eof
> > clang -std=c++20 --precompile B.ccm -o B.pcm
> > clang -std=c++20 --precompile C.ccm -o C.pcm
> > clang -std=c++20 -fprebuilt-module-path=. A.cc B.pcm C.pcm -o A
> >
> > /tmp/d/C.ccm:3:37: error: 'foo' has different definitions in different modules; definition in module 'C' first difference is function body
> > export module C; export inline void foo() { assert(1); }
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > /tmp/d/B.ccm:3:37: note: but in 'B' found a different body
> > export module B; export inline void foo() { assert(1); }
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
> > Fix this by preferring __builtin_FILE/__builtin_LINE which do not need
> > preprocessing.
> > ---
> > include/assert.h | 6 ++++++
> > 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/include/assert.h b/include/assert.h
> > index d14ec94e..b209c2ae 100644
> > --- a/include/assert.h
> > +++ b/include/assert.h
> > @@ -4,6 +4,12 @@
> >
> > #ifdef NDEBUG
> > #define assert(x) (void)0
> > +#elif defined(__has_builtin)
> > +#if __has_builtin(__builtin_FILE)
> > +#define assert(x) ((void)((x) || (__assert_fail(#x, __builtin_FILE(), __builtin_LINE(), __func__),0)))
> > +#else
> > +#define assert(x) ((void)((x) || (__assert_fail(#x, __FILE__, __LINE__, __func__),0)))
> > +#endif
> > #else
> > #define assert(x) ((void)((x) || (__assert_fail(#x, __FILE__, __LINE__, __func__),0)))
> > #endif
> > --
> > 2.39.GIT
>
> It seems like use of assert here violates the ODR and is thus an
> application error, no? In particular, it produces multiple definitions
> that have differing behaviors, leaving which one actually gets used up
> to the linker. Without the above change, LTO is able to diagnose the
> error; with the change; it's silently deferred until runtime (where
> the assertion violation message, of produced, will likely indicate the
> wrong location).
>
> Rich
I am unsure whether it is an application error in the above example.
If it is not a good example, here is another one
where the inline function using assert is in a header:
echo 'import B; import C; int main() { foo(); }' > A.cc
cat > a.h <<'eof'
#include <assert.h>
inline void fn() { assert(1); }
eof
cat > B.ccm <<'eof'
module;
#include "a.h"
export module B; export inline void foo() { fn(); }
eof
mkdir -p ./d
cat > d/C.ccm <<'eof'
module;
#include "../a.h"
export module C; export inline void foo() { fn(); }
eof
sed 's/^ /\t/' > Makefile <<'eof'
C := clang
all:
$C -std=c++20 --precompile B.ccm -o B.pcm
$C -std=c++20 --precompile d/C.ccm -o d/C.pcm
$C -std=c++20 -fprebuilt-module-path=. -fprebuilt-module-path=d A.cc
B.pcm d/C.pcm -o A
eof
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: [musl] [PATCH] Use __builtin_FILE/__builtin_LINE if available
2023-02-18 2:53 ` Fangrui Song
@ 2023-02-18 12:17 ` Jon Chesterfield
2023-02-21 19:09 ` Fangrui Song
2023-02-21 19:45 ` Jeffrey Walton
0 siblings, 2 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: Jon Chesterfield @ 2023-02-18 12:17 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: musl
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 751 bytes --]
On Sat, 18 Feb 2023, 02:54 Fangrui Song, <i@maskray.me> wrote:
On Fri, Feb 17, 2023 at 6:03 PM Rich Felker <dalias@libc.org> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Feb 17, 2023 at 05:33:33PM -0800, Fangrui Song wrote:
> > C++ inline functions are requred to have exact same sequence of tokens
> > in every translation unit, but __FILE__ and __LINE__ may expand to
> > different tokens. The ODR violatioin is usually benign, but it can lead
> > to errors when C++20 modules are used.
It is sad that C++ modules broke 'assert' but not surprising. Modules were
largely created out of aversion to macros. This isn't something libc can
fix though, I suggest a defect report against C++ instead.
Changing the semantics of assert in C seems like a bad thing to do.
Thanks
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1236 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: [musl] [PATCH] Use __builtin_FILE/__builtin_LINE if available
2023-02-18 12:17 ` Jon Chesterfield
@ 2023-02-21 19:09 ` Fangrui Song
2023-02-27 22:26 ` Szabolcs Nagy
2023-02-21 19:45 ` Jeffrey Walton
1 sibling, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread
From: Fangrui Song @ 2023-02-21 19:09 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: musl
On Sat, Feb 18, 2023 at 4:17 AM Jon Chesterfield
<jonathanchesterfield@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Sat, 18 Feb 2023, 02:54 Fangrui Song, <i@maskray.me> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Feb 17, 2023 at 6:03 PM Rich Felker <dalias@libc.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Feb 17, 2023 at 05:33:33PM -0800, Fangrui Song wrote:
> > > C++ inline functions are requred to have exact same sequence of tokens
> > > in every translation unit, but __FILE__ and __LINE__ may expand to
> > > different tokens. The ODR violatioin is usually benign, but it can lead
> > > to errors when C++20 modules are used.
>
>
>
> It is sad that C++ modules broke 'assert' but not surprising. Modules were largely created out of aversion to macros. This isn't something libc can fix though, I suggest a defect report against C++ instead.
>
> Changing the semantics of assert in C seems like a bad thing to do.
>
> Thanks
I disagree. This is a footgun where the right fix (or workaround, if
you prefer) is on the libc side. It is fairly reasonable for a header
to use assert and not expect two includes using different paths to not
cause C++ module problems.
The current module behavior regarding macros is a reasonable
compromise. It can be evolved (e.g.
https://gracicot.github.io/modules/2018/05/14/modules-macro.html).
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: [musl] [PATCH] Use __builtin_FILE/__builtin_LINE if available
2023-02-21 19:09 ` Fangrui Song
@ 2023-02-27 22:26 ` Szabolcs Nagy
2023-03-02 8:19 ` Fangrui Song
[not found] ` <DS7PR12MB57655F44D45FF7D0B9BB01C5CBB29@DS7PR12MB5765.namprd12.prod.outlook.com>
0 siblings, 2 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: Szabolcs Nagy @ 2023-02-27 22:26 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Fangrui Song; +Cc: musl
* Fangrui Song <i@maskray.me> [2023-02-21 11:09:14 -0800]:
> On Sat, Feb 18, 2023 at 4:17 AM Jon Chesterfield
> <jonathanchesterfield@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, 18 Feb 2023, 02:54 Fangrui Song, <i@maskray.me> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Feb 17, 2023 at 6:03 PM Rich Felker <dalias@libc.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Fri, Feb 17, 2023 at 05:33:33PM -0800, Fangrui Song wrote:
> > > > C++ inline functions are requred to have exact same sequence of tokens
> > > > in every translation unit, but __FILE__ and __LINE__ may expand to
> > > > different tokens. The ODR violatioin is usually benign, but it can lead
> > > > to errors when C++20 modules are used.
> >
> >
> >
> > It is sad that C++ modules broke 'assert' but not surprising. Modules were largely created out of aversion to macros. This isn't something libc can fix though, I suggest a defect report against C++ instead.
> >
> > Changing the semantics of assert in C seems like a bad thing to do.
> >
> > Thanks
>
> I disagree. This is a footgun where the right fix (or workaround, if
> you prefer) is on the libc side. It is fairly reasonable for a header
> to use assert and not expect two includes using different paths to not
> cause C++ module problems.
>
> The current module behavior regarding macros is a reasonable
> compromise. It can be evolved (e.g.
> https://gracicot.github.io/modules/2018/05/14/modules-macro.html).
i dont see how that solves the fundamental problem:
the *behavior* of assert changes depending on which include path is
used and thus inline functions that are supposed to be equivalent
aren't. (__builtin_FILE makes the pp-token sequence the same across
the instances, but the actual code will have different paths, which
while not an odr violation per the literal words of the spec, it
clearly violates the reason the rule is there in the first place.)
libc can avoid printing the file path in the assert fail message for
c++. this makes assert less useful but it solves the conformance issue.
if c++ does not specify which path assert should print (or allow it to
be unpredictable) then it is difficult to do better than this.
it would have been more useful to have a __builtin_canonical_FILE()
or similar that gives a path that is somehow independent of include
path, but we don't have that now.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: [musl] [PATCH] Use __builtin_FILE/__builtin_LINE if available
2023-02-27 22:26 ` Szabolcs Nagy
@ 2023-03-02 8:19 ` Fangrui Song
[not found] ` <DS7PR12MB57655F44D45FF7D0B9BB01C5CBB29@DS7PR12MB5765.namprd12.prod.outlook.com>
1 sibling, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: Fangrui Song @ 2023-03-02 8:19 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: musl, lichray
On Mon, Feb 27, 2023 at 2:27 PM Szabolcs Nagy <nsz@port70.net> wrote:
>
> * Fangrui Song <i@maskray.me> [2023-02-21 11:09:14 -0800]:
>
> > On Sat, Feb 18, 2023 at 4:17 AM Jon Chesterfield
> > <jonathanchesterfield@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Sat, 18 Feb 2023, 02:54 Fangrui Song, <i@maskray.me> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Fri, Feb 17, 2023 at 6:03 PM Rich Felker <dalias@libc.org> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Feb 17, 2023 at 05:33:33PM -0800, Fangrui Song wrote:
> > > > > C++ inline functions are requred to have exact same sequence of tokens
> > > > > in every translation unit, but __FILE__ and __LINE__ may expand to
> > > > > different tokens. The ODR violatioin is usually benign, but it can lead
> > > > > to errors when C++20 modules are used.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > It is sad that C++ modules broke 'assert' but not surprising. Modules were largely created out of aversion to macros. This isn't something libc can fix though, I suggest a defect report against C++ instead.
To lichray: ^^
> > > Changing the semantics of assert in C seems like a bad thing to do.
> > >
> > > Thanks
> >
> > I disagree. This is a footgun where the right fix (or workaround, if
> > you prefer) is on the libc side. It is fairly reasonable for a header
> > to use assert and not expect two includes using different paths to not
> > cause C++ module problems.
> >
> > The current module behavior regarding macros is a reasonable
> > compromise. It can be evolved (e.g.
> > https://gracicot.github.io/modules/2018/05/14/modules-macro.html).
>
> i dont see how that solves the fundamental problem:
>
> the *behavior* of assert changes depending on which include path is
> used and thus inline functions that are supposed to be equivalent
> aren't. (__builtin_FILE makes the pp-token sequence the same across
> the instances, but the actual code will have different paths, which
> while not an odr violation per the literal words of the spec, it
> clearly violates the reason the rule is there in the first place.)
> libc can avoid printing the file path in the assert fail message for
> c++. this makes assert less useful but it solves the conformance issue.
> if c++ does not specify which path assert should print (or allow it to
> be unpredictable) then it is difficult to do better than this.
>
> it would have been more useful to have a __builtin_canonical_FILE()
> or similar that gives a path that is somehow independent of include
> path, but we don't have that now.
__FILE_NAME__ / __builtin_FILE_NAME just expands to the basename
(https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108978), which may help.
I created this musl patch as I saw glibc made a similar change on 2023-02-10.
Rejecting this patch is fine. It probably needs some time for standard
C++ modules to become mainstream to expose this deployment problem.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
[parent not found: <DS7PR12MB57655F44D45FF7D0B9BB01C5CBB29@DS7PR12MB5765.namprd12.prod.outlook.com>]
* Re: [musl] [PATCH] Use __builtin_FILE/__builtin_LINE if available
[not found] ` <DS7PR12MB57655F44D45FF7D0B9BB01C5CBB29@DS7PR12MB5765.namprd12.prod.outlook.com>
@ 2023-03-05 3:23 ` Zhihao Yuan
2023-08-30 22:04 ` Fangrui Song
0 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread
From: Zhihao Yuan @ 2023-03-05 3:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Fangrui Song; +Cc: musl
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2508 bytes --]
On Thu, Mar 2, 2023 at 12:19 AM Fangrui Song <i@maskray.me> wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 27, 2023 at 2:27 PM Szabolcs Nagy <nsz@port70.net> wrote:
> > > > It is sad that C++ modules broke 'assert' but not surprising.
> Modules were largely created out of aversion to macros. This isn't
> something libc can fix though, I suggest a defect report against C++
> instead.
>
> To lichray: ^^
>
The definition of 'assert' is mandatory only when NDEBUG
is defined as a macro name. 7.2.1.1 reads:
"[...], if expression (which shall have a scalar type) is false (that is,
compares equal to 0),
the assert macro writes information about the particular call that failed
(including the text of the
argument, the name of the source file, the source line number, and the name
of the enclosing function
— the latter are respectively the values of the preprocessing macros
__FILE__ and __LINE__ and of
the identifier __func__) on the standard error stream in an
implementation-defined format."
The text in parentheses did not mandate the use of __FILE__
and __LINE__, and C++ did not permit 'assert' not to work in
modules. Therefore an implementation that fails to compile
the code snippet in the original email is not conforming.
>
> > > > Changing the semantics of assert in C seems like a bad thing to do.
> > > >
>
The semantics is unchanged, and people are doing it:
Add custom ODR-safe assert. (!1166) · Merge requests · libeigen / eigen ·
GitLab <https://gitlab.com/libeigen/eigen/-/merge_requests/1166>
> >
> > i dont see how that solves the fundamental problem:
> >
> > the *behavior* of assert changes depending on which include path is
> > used and thus inline functions that are supposed to be equivalent
> > aren't. (__builtin_FILE makes the pp-token sequence the same across
> > the instances, but the actual code will have different paths, which
> > while not an odr violation per the literal words of the spec, it
> > clearly violates the reason the rule is there in the first place.)
>
This is a different topic. In related news, CWG Issue 2678
(cplusplus.github.io) <https://cplusplus.github.io/CWG/issues/2678.html>
will likely need to be revisited (i.e., what does 'odr' mean
is subject to change). Regardless, __builtin_FILE is
a vendor extension and serves customers' needs in
implementing 'assert.'
--
Zhihao Yuan, ID lichray
The best way to predict the future is to invent it.
_______________________________________________
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 3559 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: [musl] [PATCH] Use __builtin_FILE/__builtin_LINE if available
2023-03-05 3:23 ` Zhihao Yuan
@ 2023-08-30 22:04 ` Fangrui Song
0 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: Fangrui Song @ 2023-08-30 22:04 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: musl
On Sat, Mar 4, 2023 at 7:23 PM Zhihao Yuan <lichray@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Mar 2, 2023 at 12:19 AM Fangrui Song <i@maskray.me> wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Feb 27, 2023 at 2:27 PM Szabolcs Nagy <nsz@port70.net> wrote:
>> > > > It is sad that C++ modules broke 'assert' but not surprising. Modules were largely created out of aversion to macros. This isn't something libc can fix though, I suggest a defect report against C++ instead.
>>
>> To lichray: ^^
>
>
> The definition of 'assert' is mandatory only when NDEBUG
> is defined as a macro name. 7.2.1.1 reads:
>
> "[...], if expression (which shall have a scalar type) is false (that is, compares equal to 0),
> the assert macro writes information about the particular call that failed (including the text of the
> argument, the name of the source file, the source line number, and the name of the enclosing function
> — the latter are respectively the values of the preprocessing macros __FILE__ and __LINE__ and of
> the identifier __func__) on the standard error stream in an implementation-defined format."
>
> The text in parentheses did not mandate the use of __FILE__
> and __LINE__, and C++ did not permit 'assert' not to work in
> modules. Therefore an implementation that fails to compile
> the code snippet in the original email is not conforming.
>>
>>
>> > > > Changing the semantics of assert in C seems like a bad thing to do.
>> > > >
>
>
> The semantics is unchanged, and people are doing it:
>
> Add custom ODR-safe assert. (!1166) · Merge requests · libeigen / eigen · GitLab
>
>>
>> >
>> > i dont see how that solves the fundamental problem:
>> >
>> > the *behavior* of assert changes depending on which include path is
>> > used and thus inline functions that are supposed to be equivalent
>> > aren't. (__builtin_FILE makes the pp-token sequence the same across
>> > the instances, but the actual code will have different paths, which
>> > while not an odr violation per the literal words of the spec, it
>> > clearly violates the reason the rule is there in the first place.)
>
>
> This is a different topic. In related news, CWG Issue 2678 (cplusplus.github.io)
> will likely need to be revisited (i.e., what does 'odr' mean
> is subject to change). Regardless, __builtin_FILE is
> a vendor extension and serves customers' needs in
> implementing 'assert.'
>
> --
> Zhihao Yuan, ID lichray
> The best way to predict the future is to invent it.
> _______________________________________________
Bump:)
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: [musl] [PATCH] Use __builtin_FILE/__builtin_LINE if available
2023-02-18 12:17 ` Jon Chesterfield
2023-02-21 19:09 ` Fangrui Song
@ 2023-02-21 19:45 ` Jeffrey Walton
1 sibling, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: Jeffrey Walton @ 2023-02-21 19:45 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: musl
On Sat, Feb 18, 2023 at 7:17 AM Jon Chesterfield
<jonathanchesterfield@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Sat, 18 Feb 2023, 02:54 Fangrui Song, <i@maskray.me> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Feb 17, 2023 at 6:03 PM Rich Felker <dalias@libc.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Feb 17, 2023 at 05:33:33PM -0800, Fangrui Song wrote:
> > > C++ inline functions are requred to have exact same sequence of tokens
> > > in every translation unit, but __FILE__ and __LINE__ may expand to
> > > different tokens. The ODR violatioin is usually benign, but it can lead
> > > to errors when C++20 modules are used.
>
> It is sad that C++ modules broke 'assert' but not surprising. Modules were largely created out of aversion to macros. This isn't something libc can fix though, I suggest a defect report against C++ instead.
Somewhat related, I tried contacting the C/C++ committee to have
concerns addressed several years ago. I was not able to reach the
committee. There's no mailing list or discussion group available to
the public at large. It looks like one of those groups where the
committee only talks with the companies that build compilers.
Outsiders (like compiler users) are not welcomed.
> Changing the semantics of assert in C seems like a bad thing to do.
++
Jeff
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2023-08-30 22:05 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2023-02-18 1:33 [musl] [PATCH] Use __builtin_FILE/__builtin_LINE if available Fangrui Song
2023-02-18 2:03 ` Rich Felker
2023-02-18 2:53 ` Fangrui Song
2023-02-18 12:17 ` Jon Chesterfield
2023-02-21 19:09 ` Fangrui Song
2023-02-27 22:26 ` Szabolcs Nagy
2023-03-02 8:19 ` Fangrui Song
[not found] ` <DS7PR12MB57655F44D45FF7D0B9BB01C5CBB29@DS7PR12MB5765.namprd12.prod.outlook.com>
2023-03-05 3:23 ` Zhihao Yuan
2023-08-30 22:04 ` Fangrui Song
2023-02-21 19:45 ` Jeffrey Walton
Code repositories for project(s) associated with this public inbox
https://git.vuxu.org/mirror/musl/
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 NNTP newsgroup(s).