On 10/23/2017 04:50 PM, David Malcolm wrote: > FWIW, this one isn't from #pragma poison, it's from: > #define abort() fancy_abort (__FILE__, __LINE__, __FUNCTION__) > > (I messed up the --in-reply-to when posting the patch, but Gerald noted > the issue was due to: > /usr/include/c++/v1/typeinfo:199:2: error: no member named > 'fancy_abort' in namespace 'std::__1'; did you mean simply > 'fancy_abort'? > _VSTD::abort(); > ^~~~~~~ > /usr/include/c++/v1/__config:390:15: note: expanded from macro '_VSTD' > #define _VSTD std::_LIBCPP_NAMESPACE > ^ > /scratch/tmp/gerald/gcc-HEAD/gcc/system.h:725:13: note: 'fancy_abort' > declared here > extern void fancy_abort (const char *, int, const char *) > ^ >
IMO the best fix would be to rename that "#define abort" to "#define gcc_abort" and then call gcc_abort instead in the few places that currently call abort. IME, the introduction of a new naked call to abort() isn't something that easily passes review. abort calls always stand out and give reviewers pause (or they should!). FWIW, GDB also doesn't want such naked abort() calls, I don't recall people-sneaking-in-abort-()-calls ever being a problem over there. Thanks, Pedro Alves
