On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 5:45 PM, Nico Weber <tha...@chromium.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 5:39 PM, Richard Smith <rich...@metafoo.co.uk>
> wrote:
>>
>> As far as I can see, if one of the __need_FOO macros is defined, glibc
>> expects <stddef.h> to provide *only* FOO, and not any of the other pieces of
>> <stddef.h>, so I don't think this patch is entirely right. It's also not
>> complete -- we should also handle FOO in the set {wchar_t, size_t,
>> ptrdiff_t, wint_t}.
>
>
> wint_t is already handled, right below the lines my patch touches (and in
> the same way as in my patch). The others don't seem to be needed at the
> moment, so I'd omit them from now.
Sounds like I misunderstood Richard's reply to this on IRC and he
thought this was less convincing than I did :-)
For comparison, here are two other possible patches:
* clang-neednull-2.patch changes things so that if __need_NULL is
defined, stddef.h defines NULL and nothing else. It also changes
stddef.h so that __need_win_t defines only wint_t and does nothing
else – this latter part happens to break a test, so the patch also
updates that test. As far as I can tell from inspection, the test
wouldn't pass with gcc's stddef.h either, so this improves
compatibility but it might break existing code.
* clang-neednull-3.patch also adds support for the rest of FOO in the
set {wchar_t, size_t, ptrdiff_t}.
Let me know which one of the 3 patches (with 1 being the one I
originally sent) you like best. If it's 3, I'll add a few more tests
for that.
>
>>
>> The intent appears to be to support libc headers such as <stdlib.h> (which
>> provides NULL and size_t, but is *not* allowed to provide any of the other
>> parts of <stddef.h>), and *not* to recover from the <linux/*>, <asm/*>, etc.
>> headers breaking the definition of NULL. I can see no evidence of any header
>> including the broken NULL definition and trying to fix it, only headers
>> asking for subsets of <stddef.h>.
>>
>> So... I'm not opposed to this patch, if it does the right thing, but I
>> don't think it's a (complete) solution to the problem of getting a bad
>> definition of NULL from <linux/stddef.h>.
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 1:45 PM, Chandler Carruth <chandl...@google.com>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 1:16 PM, Nico Weber <tha...@chromium.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 1:05 PM, Reid Kleckner <r...@google.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Even if we commit this workaround, can we report this as a bug to
>>>>> upstream Linux?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> As mentioned above, I'm guessing Linux probably doesn't want to depend
>>>> on C standard headers, so they wouldn't see this as a bug in Linux.
>>>
>>>
>>> Just FYI, there is a more subtle distinction here.
>>>
>>> Linux probably wants to not depend on a C standard library. But stddef.h
>>> and the definition of NULL is actually available even in a *freestanding*
>>> implementation of C which has no standard library. It's required to be
>>> provided by the compiler. As such, I actually think Linux would be OK with
>>> including stddef.h from a technical perspective. Any barrier here would be
>>> historical or political.
>>>
>>> That said, either historical or political barriers would be barriers all
>>> the same, and more pressingly we can't retroactively change all of the
>>> existing linux kernel headers and glibcs deployed around the world and
>>> trying to use Clang. So suggesting *only* changing either Linux or glibc is
>>> a non-starter. We need to both change Clang to work around this, and (where
>>> we can) suggest to the upstream communities a more clean solution.
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> cfe-commits mailing list
>>> cfe-commits@cs.uiuc.edu
>>> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
>>>
>>
>
clang-neednull-3.patch
Description: Binary data
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@cs.uiuc.edu http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
