> On Thu, Mar 28, 2019 at 02:02:58PM -0400, Frediano Ziglio wrote:
> > >
> > > The for(;;) hack was taken from glib's logging macros.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Christophe Fergeau <cfergeau@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > > common/log.h | 8 ++++++++
> > > 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/common/log.h b/common/log.h
> > > index 7c67e7a..b397306 100644
> > > --- a/common/log.h
> > > +++ b/common/log.h
> > > @@ -20,6 +20,7 @@
> > >
> > > #include <stdarg.h>
> > > #include <stdio.h>
> > > +#include <stdlib.h>
> > > #include <glib.h>
> > > #include <spice/macros.h>
> > >
> > > @@ -42,6 +43,7 @@ void spice_log(GLogLevelFlags log_level,
> > > #define spice_return_if_fail(x) G_STMT_START {
> > > \
> > > if G_LIKELY(x) { } else {
> > > \
> > > spice_log(G_LOG_LEVEL_CRITICAL, SPICE_STRLOC, G_STRFUNC,
> > > "condition
> > > `%s' failed", #x); \
> > > + abort();
> > > \
> > > return;
> > > \
> > > }
> > > \
> > > } G_STMT_END
> > > @@ -49,6 +51,7 @@ void spice_log(GLogLevelFlags log_level,
> > > #define spice_return_val_if_fail(x, val) G_STMT_START {
> > > \
> > > if G_LIKELY(x) { } else {
> > > \
> > > spice_log(G_LOG_LEVEL_CRITICAL, SPICE_STRLOC, __FUNCTION__,
> > > "condition `%s' failed", #x); \
> > > + abort();
> > > \
> > > return (val);
> > > \
> > > }
> > > \
> > > } G_STMT_END
> > > @@ -69,12 +72,17 @@ void spice_log(GLogLevelFlags log_level,
> > > spice_log(G_LOG_LEVEL_WARNING, SPICE_STRLOC, __FUNCTION__, ""
> > > format, ##
> > > __VA_ARGS__); \
> > > } G_STMT_END
> > >
> > > +/* for(;;) ; so that GCC knows that control doesn't go past g_error().
> >
> > g_error? copy&paste error?
> >
> > > + * Put space before ending semicolon to avoid C++ build warnings.
> > > + */
> > > #define spice_critical(format, ...) G_STMT_START {
> > > \
> > > spice_log(G_LOG_LEVEL_CRITICAL, SPICE_STRLOC, __FUNCTION__, ""
> > > format,
> > > ## __VA_ARGS__); \
> > > + for (;;) ;
> >
> > I suppose you can use "for(;;) continue;" and remove the comment (that
> > "continue" was an old suggestion I had, I agree with C++ warning like
> > I agreed at that time with the continue).
> >
> > Why some are for and some abort?
>
> Actually, I can't remember, and I haven't been able to reproduce the
> warnings I wanted to fix. I changed all to abort(), which should be
> enough.
>
> Christophe
>
I would personally change all to for to avoid the additional include.
If you don't are able to reproduce why "fixing" ?
Frediano
_______________________________________________
Spice-devel mailing list
Spice-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/spice-devel