On Mittwoch, 17. August 2022 17:55:24 CEST Peter Maydell wrote: > On Wed, 17 Aug 2022 at 15:49, Nikita Ivanov <niva...@cloudlinux.com> wrote: > > Well... > > > > What exactly is still under discussion? In my perspective, the main > > pitfalls have been resolved: > > > > 0. All possible places where TFR() macro could be applied are covered. > > 1. Macro has been renamed in order to be more transparent. The name has > > been chosen in comparison with a similar glibc macro. 2. The macro itself > > has been refactored, in order to replace it entirely with glibc > > alternative. 3. Problems with statement/expressions differences in qemu > > and glibc implementation have been resolved. > > > > Is there any room for improvement? > > (a) do we want the statement version or the expression version?
I think the tendency was in favour for the expression version? Markus made it clear that the glibc version indeed may evaluate as an expression (GCC extension). > (b) do we want "use the glibc one, with same-semantics version for > compatibility", or do we want "we have our own thing"? > > I would have voted for following glibc, except that it does > that cast-to-long thing, which is incorrect behaviour when > long is 32 bits and the return value from the function being > tested is 64 bits. Then simply int64_t as a type instead, and as "our own thing"? Best regards, Christian Schoenebeck
