On Mon, Oct 23, 2017 at 6:24 PM, Pedro Alves <pal...@redhat.com> wrote: > On 10/23/2017 04:50 PM, David Malcolm wrote: > >> FWIW, this one isn't from #pragma poison, it's from: >> #define abort() fancy_abort (__FILE__, __LINE__, __FUNCTION__) >> >> (I messed up the --in-reply-to when posting the patch, but Gerald noted >> the issue was due to: >> /usr/include/c++/v1/typeinfo:199:2: error: no member named >> 'fancy_abort' in namespace 'std::__1'; did you mean simply >> 'fancy_abort'? >> _VSTD::abort(); >> ^~~~~~~ >> /usr/include/c++/v1/__config:390:15: note: expanded from macro '_VSTD' >> #define _VSTD std::_LIBCPP_NAMESPACE >> ^ >> /scratch/tmp/gerald/gcc-HEAD/gcc/system.h:725:13: note: 'fancy_abort' >> declared here >> extern void fancy_abort (const char *, int, const char *) >> ^ >> > > IMO the best fix would be to rename that "#define abort" to > "#define gcc_abort" and then call gcc_abort instead in the few > places that currently call abort. > > IME, the introduction of a new naked call to abort() isn't something > that easily passes review. abort calls always stand out and give > reviewers pause (or they should!). FWIW, GDB also doesn't want > such naked abort() calls, I don't recall people-sneaking-in-abort-()-calls > ever being a problem over there.
It's probably for our build vs. target tools stuff sharing source. I agree the best solution is trying to get rid of that define (and instead poision raw abort). Richard. > Thanks, > Pedro Alves >
