> * The expansion of macro %{getmem:virt}" finishes with an error. It is
> because getmem returns 0. This is caused by the fact that function
> getmem_virt returns SIZE_MAX. After dividing by 1024^2 it is still to high to
> fit into return_type of getmem (unsigned int).
Right. I probably only tested this in 32bit context where its more relevant.
There might be more similar issues lurking (it's only an RFC for a reason)
>
> * If there is a wrong parameter after '%{getmem:' , then no warning or
> error is emitted
Yeah, known. Missing/wrong arguments to built-in macros are wildly inconsistent
in how they behave, some emit errors, some just fail silently etc.
> * Why you use a new type of built-in macro synatx %{getmem:} instead of
> something close to the existing built-in macros like %getmem_avail?
It's not a new syntax, it's a built-in with an argument like several others. I
don't see a point of adding multiple macros that all return different aspects
of the same thing, that's what a parameter is for. Purely a matter of style of
course.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/821#issuecomment-526558715_______________________________________________
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org
http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
