Re: [xproto] _X_NONNULL and C++ 11

2017-05-27 Thread Alan Coopersmith 

On 05/27/17 02:02 AM, Matthieu Herrb wrote:

Hi,

Marc Espie recently found out that the X_NONNULL macro in Xfuncproto.h
is generating spurious warnings when included in C++ code build with
clang++ -std=c++11.

Other OpenBSD developper tried to find uses of the macro in the wild
and didn't find any, even in the X.Org lib app or xserver tree.

So, should this macro definition be removed alltogether (acking that
no-one cares to use it) or just apply the patch below ?


I could swear there was some use for it when it was added, but I can't
find any either in the sources, nor in the introducing commit:
https://cgit.freedesktop.org/xorg/proto/x11proto/commit/Xfuncproto.h.in?id=217d1dae0093ccaaac59a4fa42000e732492cb66

Jeremy - did you ever add usage of this somewhere we're not seeing, such
as in the macosforge repos?

--
-Alan Coopersmith-  alan.coopersm...@oracle.com
 Oracle Solaris Engineering - http://blogs.oracle.com/alanc
___
xorg-devel@lists.x.org: X.Org development
Archives: http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel
Info: https://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-devel

Re: [xproto] _X_NONNULL and C++ 11

2017-05-27 Thread walter harms 


Am 27.05.2017 14:10, schrieb Mark Kettenis:
>> Date: Sat, 27 May 2017 13:33:25 +0200
>> From: walter harms 
>>
>> Am 27.05.2017 11:02, schrieb Matthieu Herrb:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Marc Espie recently found out that the X_NONNULL macro in Xfuncproto.h
>>> is generating spurious warnings when included in C++ code build with
>>> clang++ -std=c++11.
>>>
>>> Other OpenBSD developper tried to find uses of the macro in the wild
>>> and didn't find any, even in the X.Org lib app or xserver tree.
>>>
>>> So, should this macro definition be removed alltogether (acking that
>>> no-one cares to use it) or just apply the patch below ?
>>>
>>> From 6ae956660879d70e078025c3d8f1ac3fd438cad2 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
>>> From: Marc Espie 
>>> Date: Sat, 27 May 2017 10:55:04 +0200
>>> Subject: [PATCH] Fix compiling any C++ code including Xfuncproto.h with
>>>  clang++ -std=c++11
>>>
>>> It shouldn't warn, bu it will use the "legacy" varargs macros and whine.
>>> ---
>>>  Xfuncproto.h.in | 3 ++-
>>>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/Xfuncproto.h.in b/Xfuncproto.h.in
>>> index b88493d..1be3f55 100644
>>> --- a/Xfuncproto.h.in
>>> +++ b/Xfuncproto.h.in
>>> @@ -166,7 +166,8 @@ in this Software without prior written authorization 
>>> from The Open Group.
>>> argument macros, must be only used inside #ifdef _X_NONNULL guards, as
>>> many legacy X clients are compiled in C89 mode still. */
>>>  #if __has_attribute(nonnull) \
>>> -&& defined(__STDC_VERSION__) && (__STDC_VERSION__ - 0 >= 199901L) /* 
>>> C99 */
>>> +&& (defined(__STDC_VERSION__) && (__STDC_VERSION__ - 0 >= 199901L) \
>>> +|| (defined(__cplusplus) && (__cplusplus - 0 >= 201103L))) /* C99 
>>> C++11 */
>>>  #define _X_NONNULL(...)  __attribute__((nonnull(__VA_ARGS__)))
>>>  #elif __has_attribute(nonnull) \
>>>  || defined(__GNUC__) &&  ((__GNUC__ * 100 + __GNUC_MINOR__) >= 303)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> So far i understand this is a problem with clang++. "spurious
>> warning" sounds for me more like a compiler bug (assuming that gcc
>> has no problems with that). So why not make that a NOOP until fixed
>> in clang ?
> 
> GCC 4.9.4 warns as well:
> 
> $ g++ -pedantic -std=c++11 -I/usr/X11R6/include xfunc.cc
> In file included from xfunc.cc:1:0:
> /usr/X11R6/include/X11/Xfuncproto.h:173:24: warning: ISO C does not permit 
> named variadic macros [-Wvariadic-macros]
>  #define _X_NONNULL(args...)  __attribute__((nonnull(args)))
> 

i have checked my version and can confirm the problem also with gcc (and 
-pedantic).

i guess it is more simple the remove the macro completely. It is only for 
optimization,
it is never used, ... lets remove it.

re,
 wh
___
xorg-devel@lists.x.org: X.Org development
Archives: http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel
Info: https://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-devel

Re: [xproto] _X_NONNULL and C++ 11

2017-05-27 Thread Mark Kettenis 
> Date: Sat, 27 May 2017 13:33:25 +0200
> From: walter harms 
> 
> Am 27.05.2017 11:02, schrieb Matthieu Herrb:
> > Hi,
> > 
> > Marc Espie recently found out that the X_NONNULL macro in Xfuncproto.h
> > is generating spurious warnings when included in C++ code build with
> > clang++ -std=c++11.
> > 
> > Other OpenBSD developper tried to find uses of the macro in the wild
> > and didn't find any, even in the X.Org lib app or xserver tree.
> > 
> > So, should this macro definition be removed alltogether (acking that
> > no-one cares to use it) or just apply the patch below ?
> > 
> > From 6ae956660879d70e078025c3d8f1ac3fd438cad2 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> > From: Marc Espie 
> > Date: Sat, 27 May 2017 10:55:04 +0200
> > Subject: [PATCH] Fix compiling any C++ code including Xfuncproto.h with
> >  clang++ -std=c++11
> > 
> > It shouldn't warn, bu it will use the "legacy" varargs macros and whine.
> > ---
> >  Xfuncproto.h.in | 3 ++-
> >  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/Xfuncproto.h.in b/Xfuncproto.h.in
> > index b88493d..1be3f55 100644
> > --- a/Xfuncproto.h.in
> > +++ b/Xfuncproto.h.in
> > @@ -166,7 +166,8 @@ in this Software without prior written authorization 
> > from The Open Group.
> > argument macros, must be only used inside #ifdef _X_NONNULL guards, as
> > many legacy X clients are compiled in C89 mode still. */
> >  #if __has_attribute(nonnull) \
> > -&& defined(__STDC_VERSION__) && (__STDC_VERSION__ - 0 >= 199901L) /* 
> > C99 */
> > +&& (defined(__STDC_VERSION__) && (__STDC_VERSION__ - 0 >= 199901L) \
> > +|| (defined(__cplusplus) && (__cplusplus - 0 >= 201103L))) /* C99 
> > C++11 */
> >  #define _X_NONNULL(...)  __attribute__((nonnull(__VA_ARGS__)))
> >  #elif __has_attribute(nonnull) \
> >  || defined(__GNUC__) &&  ((__GNUC__ * 100 + __GNUC_MINOR__) >= 303)
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 
> So far i understand this is a problem with clang++. "spurious
> warning" sounds for me more like a compiler bug (assuming that gcc
> has no problems with that). So why not make that a NOOP until fixed
> in clang ?

GCC 4.9.4 warns as well:

$ g++ -pedantic -std=c++11 -I/usr/X11R6/include xfunc.cc
In file included from xfunc.cc:1:0:
/usr/X11R6/include/X11/Xfuncproto.h:173:24: warning: ISO C does not permit 
named variadic macros [-Wvariadic-macros]
 #define _X_NONNULL(args...)  __attribute__((nonnull(args)))

___
xorg-devel@lists.x.org: X.Org development
Archives: http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel
Info: https://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-devel

Re: [xproto] _X_NONNULL and C++ 11

2017-05-27 Thread walter harms 


Am 27.05.2017 11:02, schrieb Matthieu Herrb:
> Hi,
> 
> Marc Espie recently found out that the X_NONNULL macro in Xfuncproto.h
> is generating spurious warnings when included in C++ code build with
> clang++ -std=c++11.
> 
> Other OpenBSD developper tried to find uses of the macro in the wild
> and didn't find any, even in the X.Org lib app or xserver tree.
> 
> So, should this macro definition be removed alltogether (acking that
> no-one cares to use it) or just apply the patch below ?
> 
> From 6ae956660879d70e078025c3d8f1ac3fd438cad2 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Marc Espie 
> Date: Sat, 27 May 2017 10:55:04 +0200
> Subject: [PATCH] Fix compiling any C++ code including Xfuncproto.h with
>  clang++ -std=c++11
> 
> It shouldn't warn, bu it will use the "legacy" varargs macros and whine.
> ---
>  Xfuncproto.h.in | 3 ++-
>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/Xfuncproto.h.in b/Xfuncproto.h.in
> index b88493d..1be3f55 100644
> --- a/Xfuncproto.h.in
> +++ b/Xfuncproto.h.in
> @@ -166,7 +166,8 @@ in this Software without prior written authorization from 
> The Open Group.
> argument macros, must be only used inside #ifdef _X_NONNULL guards, as
> many legacy X clients are compiled in C89 mode still. */
>  #if __has_attribute(nonnull) \
> -&& defined(__STDC_VERSION__) && (__STDC_VERSION__ - 0 >= 199901L) /* C99 
> */
> +&& (defined(__STDC_VERSION__) && (__STDC_VERSION__ - 0 >= 199901L) \
> +|| (defined(__cplusplus) && (__cplusplus - 0 >= 201103L))) /* C99 C++11 
> */
>  #define _X_NONNULL(...)  __attribute__((nonnull(__VA_ARGS__)))
>  #elif __has_attribute(nonnull) \
>  || defined(__GNUC__) &&  ((__GNUC__ * 100 + __GNUC_MINOR__) >= 303)
> 
> 
> 

So far i understand this is a problem with clang++. "spurious warning" sounds 
for me more
like a compiler bug (assuming that gcc has no problems with that). So why not 
make that
a NOOP until fixed in clang ?

re,
 wh

___
xorg-devel@lists.x.org: X.Org development
Archives: http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel
Info: https://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-devel

[xproto] _X_NONNULL and C++ 11

2017-05-27 Thread Matthieu Herrb 
Hi,

Marc Espie recently found out that the X_NONNULL macro in Xfuncproto.h
is generating spurious warnings when included in C++ code build with
clang++ -std=c++11.

Other OpenBSD developper tried to find uses of the macro in the wild
and didn't find any, even in the X.Org lib app or xserver tree.

So, should this macro definition be removed alltogether (acking that
no-one cares to use it) or just apply the patch below ?

From 6ae956660879d70e078025c3d8f1ac3fd438cad2 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Marc Espie 
Date: Sat, 27 May 2017 10:55:04 +0200
Subject: [PATCH] Fix compiling any C++ code including Xfuncproto.h with
 clang++ -std=c++11

It shouldn't warn, bu it will use the "legacy" varargs macros and whine.
---
 Xfuncproto.h.in | 3 ++-
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/Xfuncproto.h.in b/Xfuncproto.h.in
index b88493d..1be3f55 100644
--- a/Xfuncproto.h.in
+++ b/Xfuncproto.h.in
@@ -166,7 +166,8 @@ in this Software without prior written authorization from 
The Open Group.
argument macros, must be only used inside #ifdef _X_NONNULL guards, as
many legacy X clients are compiled in C89 mode still. */
 #if __has_attribute(nonnull) \
-&& defined(__STDC_VERSION__) && (__STDC_VERSION__ - 0 >= 199901L) /* C99 */
+&& (defined(__STDC_VERSION__) && (__STDC_VERSION__ - 0 >= 199901L) \
+|| (defined(__cplusplus) && (__cplusplus - 0 >= 201103L))) /* C99 C++11 */
 #define _X_NONNULL(...)  __attribute__((nonnull(__VA_ARGS__)))
 #elif __has_attribute(nonnull) \
 || defined(__GNUC__) &&  ((__GNUC__ * 100 + __GNUC_MINOR__) >= 303)
-- 
2.13.0


-- 
Matthieu Herrb


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
xorg-devel@lists.x.org: X.Org development
Archives: http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel
Info: https://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-devel