On Mon, Feb 26, 2024 at 1:25 PM Julien Rouhaud <rjuju...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > #define CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS_X(x, f, CFI_IMPL, ...) CFI_IMPL > > > > > > #define CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(...) \ > > > CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS_X(, ##__VA_ARGS__, \ > > > > > > CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS_1(__VA_ARGS__), \ > > > > > > CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS_0(__VA_ARGS__) \ > > > ) > > > > > > We would have to duplicate the current CFI body, but it should never > > > really > > > change, and we shouldn't end up with more than 2 overloads anyway so I > > > don't > > > see it being much of a problem. > > > > Why do we need this complex macro? > > So that client code can use either CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS() or > CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(flag) rather that transforming every single > CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS() to CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(0), which was Robert's > complaint about this approach.
It might be better to just create two marcos (with names like CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS() and CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS_SAFE()) to call ProcessInterrupt() directly and modify ProcessInterrupts() to accept the flag (and if required call CFIFlagHandler() additionally). Last macro is hard to understand. -- Best Wishes, Ashutosh Bapat
