On May 29, 2025 12:35:04 AM UTC, Lino Mastrodomenico
<l.mastrodomen...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Thanks to both of you.
>
>The semantics of __attribute__((cleanup)) require that the entire return
>expression is evaluated before the cleanup functions are called.
> So saving
>the cleanup symbol solves most common cases but not all of them.
Cases which claim to be most common should avoid to use 'cleanup' in the first
place. (IMO)
>
>E.g. this slightly modified test case returns 42 on GCC and Clang but 0x90
>on the current TCC mob:
>
>static void my_cleanup(int **p) {
> **p = 0x90;
>}
>
>int test_cleanup(void) {
> int n = 42;
> int __attribute__((cleanup(my_cleanup))) *p = &n;
> return n;
Because what gcc does is "required semantics"? Maybe it is just undefined
behavior, like in
int n=0,*p=&n; return n + (*p=1);
> When looking at the source code I'm tempted to swap leave_scope and
> gfunc_return as Herman did.
And what if there is no 'return'?
printf("... %d\n", ({
int __attribute__ ((cleanup(my_cleanup))) n = 42;
n; }));
-- gr
_______________________________________________
Tinycc-devel mailing list
Tinycc-devel@nongnu.org
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/tinycc-devel
