Hi Elliott, On Thu, Aug 22, 2024 at 12:34:11PM GMT, enh wrote: > On Thu, Aug 22, 2024 at 12:27 PM Alejandro Colomar <alx@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > I'd rather add a diagnostic for those who define it themselves now, > > than providing a sub-par prototype for eternity. I guess the existing > > number of users is small, and it doesn't break binaries, just > > compilation. > > yeah, afaict it's basically just "qemu-like things" and the occasional > debugging tool. > > > Those will probably just need to add an ifdef for the glibc version that > > added the prototype, so it's an easy fix. > > no, they'd just have to change their declaration to match whatever > glibc ships. (which is definitely more verbose if it's any kind of > union.) Redefinition of transparent unions is allowed? I'm not sure; at least prior to C23. > > i don't have a strong opinion, other than "i want to make sure that > bionic and glibc have the _same_ declaration so that it's at least > possible for folks to fix their source to 'just work' everywhere"... +1 > > But I tend to value more eternity than added diagnostics, and others may > > disagree with that, so whatever you decide is probably good, and I'll > > document it. :) > > minimizing the need for changes on the man page is also a [minor] > argument for just going with the kernel declaration :-) > > plus it's demonstrably "good enough" for existing callers. it's not > like the union would make the api any less error-prone? The union removes the need for a cast. The cast is error-prone, since it disables most compiler diagnostics. Cheers, Alex -- <https://www.alejandro-colomar.es/>
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
