On Thu, Sep 29, 2022 at 02:42:05PM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> > > +  (* Output __attribute__((nonnull)) for the function parameters:
> > > +   * eg. struct nbd_handle *, int, char *
> > > +   *     => [ true, false, true ]
> > > +   *     => LIBNBD_ATTRIBUTE_NONNULL((1,3))
> > > +   *     => __attribute__((nonnull,(1,3)))
> > 
> > Style question. Do we want to REQUIRE the clients of this macro to
> > pass in (), or would it be better to have a varargs format?
> > 
> > > +   *)
> > > +  let nns : bool list =
> > > +    [ true ] (* struct nbd_handle * *)
> > > +    @ List.flatten (List.map arg_attr_nonnull args)
> > > +    @ List.flatten (List.map optarg_attr_nonnull optargs) in
> > > +  let nns = List.mapi (fun i b -> (i+1, b)) nns in
> > > +  let nns = filter_map (fun (i, b) -> if b then Some i else None) nns in
> > > +  let nns : string list = List.map string_of_int nns in
> > > +  pr "\n    LIBNBD_ATTRIBUTE_NONNULL((%s));\n" (String.concat "," nns)
> > 
> > For generated code, it is just as easy to cope with either style (we
> > can strip a layer of () if we want a varargs format).
> > 
...
> > > +  pr "#ifndef LIBNBD_ATTRIBUTE_NONNULL\n";
> > > +  pr "#if defined(__GNUC__) && LIBNBD_GCC_VERSION >= 120000 /* gcc >= 
> > > 12.0 */\n";
> > > +  pr "#define LIBNBD_ATTRIBUTE_NONNULL(s) __attribute__((__nonnull__ 
> > > s))\n";
> > 
> > This definition is what requires us to pass in our own ().  That is,
> > our end result is going to be one of:
> > 
> > __attribute__((__nonnull__(1) ))
> > __attribute__((__nonnull__(1, 2) ))
> > 
> > but the difference is whether we must pass exactly one macro argument,
> > and where that argument must include () even when there is only one
> > parameter to be marked (what you coded):
> > 
> > LIBNBD_ATTRIBUTE_NONNULL((1))
> > LIBNBD_ATTRIBUTE_NONNULL((1, 3))
> > 
> > vs. ease-of-use in supplying the () as part of the macro definition
> > itself by using #define MACRO(...) and __VA_ARGS__:
> > 
> > LIBNBD_ATTRIBUTE_NONNULL(1)
> > LIBNBD_ATTRIBUTE_NONNULL(1, 3)
> 
> I'm not sure I understand - what does the second definition look like?

Using a shorter name for testing:

$ cat foo.c
#define my(...) __attribute__((__nonnull__(__VA_ARGS__)))
extern void foo (char *a) my (1);
extern void bar (char *a, char *b) my (1, 2);
$ gcc -E foo.c
# 0 "foo.c"
# 0 "<built-in>"
# 0 "<command-line>"
# 1 "/usr/include/stdc-predef.h" 1 3 4
# 0 "<command-line>" 2
# 1 "foo.c"

extern void foo (char *a) __attribute__((__nonnull__(1)));
extern void bar (char *a, char *b) __attribute__((__nonnull__(1, 2)));
$ gcc -o foo.o -c foo.c
$ # compiled, so we satisfied gcc's attribute syntax

and similarly,
#define LIBNBD_ATTRIBUTE_NONNULL(...) /* no-op */
when disabling the macro.

-- 
Eric Blake, Principal Software Engineer
Red Hat, Inc.           +1-919-301-3266
Virtualization:  qemu.org | libvirt.org
_______________________________________________
Libguestfs mailing list
Libguestfs@redhat.com
https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libguestfs

Reply via email to