Am So., 3. Dez. 2023 um 10:05 Uhr schrieb Paul Eggert <egg...@cs.ucla.edu>:
> On 2023-12-02 01:04, Bruno Haible wrote: > > On the contrary, I will try to find and eliminate such alarms. > > Please don't complicate and/or slow down shared Gnulib code just to > pacify this particular false alarm from Clang. The obstack fix was fine, > because it made obstack clearer and no slower. But we shouldn't have to > insert unnecessary "is the size zero?" checks merely to pacify the false > alarms. > I would suggest writing macros that encapsulate code like "NULL + 0" and replace the code with macro invocations. On legacy systems, the macro would expand into the legacy code; on modern systems where checks like "is this zero size?" should be eliminated by the compiler, the macro would expand into the correct ISO C code. This can also make the code more transparent as long as the macro has a self-describing name. > The right place to fix this problem is in Clang, not in Gnulib. > I don't think so. As long as Clang implements ISO C, it is not Clang's problem but a problem of code that produces UB (in the technical sense). Just my two cents, of course.
