On Wed, Apr 14 2021, Jeff King wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 13, 2021 at 02:07:13PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>
>> Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> writes:
>>
>> >> + * We restrict this trick to gcc, though, because while we rely on the
>> >> + * presence of C99 variadic macros, this code also relies on the
>> >> + * non-standard behavior of GCC's __VA_ARGS__, allowing error() to
>> >> + * work even if no format specifiers are passed to error().
>>
>> The last part of this comment is puzzlling. Do we ever call error()
>> without any format specifier? There may be GCC-ism behaviour around
>> the __VA_ARGS__ stuff, but are we relying on that GCC-ism?
>
> I took "format specifier" to mean the "%" code within the format. E.g.:
>
> error("foo");
>
> has no format specifier, and thus no arguments after the format. But
> every call will have at least the format string itself.
>
> AFAIK, portably using variadic macros means you need there to always be
> at least one argument. Hence "error(fmt, ...)" is wrong (the "..." may
> have no arguments) but "error(...)" is OK (you always have a format
> string). I'm not sure if Ævar knows about some other portability gotcha,
> or if he just didn't realize that this was written in the portable way.
No, I just read elsewhere that GCC had non-standard behavior, and didn't
look carefully at your implementation, but since it explicitly depended
on GNUC etc. understood it to mean it was GCC-specific, not just
C99-specific.
So it can simply be changed to depend on HAVE_VARIADIC_MACROS instead?
