On Wed, Sep 1, 2021 at 4:34 AM Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 01 2021, Jeff King wrote: > > > Patch 2 looks good to me, though I kind of wonder if it is even worth > > having an option to turn it off. I failed to mention "Patch 2" isn't ready as it will break the mingw64 builds in Windows. While I also hope there is no need to have an option to turn it off, realistically I expect the wall of errors is still there for non gcc/clang compilers and I am curious if some developer still using RHEL 7 (or a clone) will report back and will be forced to use it. > > IMHO the issue it is trying to find is not worth the inevitable problems > > that hacky perl parsing of C will cause (both false positives and > > negatives). Not a statement on your perl code, but just based on > > previous experience. > > > > So I'd probably take the first two patches, and leave the others. Maybe better to discard the whole series and rebase it on top of Ævar's then > So I think (per [1]) that we should just remove > USE_PARENS_AROUND_GETTEXT_N, and that the 3/4 here isn't needed at all > (aside from concerns about parsing C with Perl). > > But in the future we need any assertion for this sort of thing at all > it would be better built on top of my [2]. I.e. parse-options.c could do > some basic sanity checking on the usage array it takes, we'd then end up > detecting the issue USE_PARENS_AROUND_GETTEXT_N was trying to address, > and more (such as the alignment problems I fixed in 1/2 of my [2]). Regardless of how ugly my perl script was, I don't think this specific issue could be handled by the C code, as it needs to be done with preprocessed sources. note also, it is not really parsing C, but just looking at a regex which could have been as well handled with a simple grep. The script was built under the incorrect assumption it would be useful to track exceptions and have a way to keep that state (as well as the code) cleanly out of the way (which is why patch 4 is also there). Carlo
