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? (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. thanks -- PMM
