[Libvir] [PATCH] Check calls to printf-like functions (and some fixes)
* Check calls to printf-like functions (and some fixes) * Fix qemudDebug when debug not enabled * Fix TODO so it doesn't supply a semi-colon (and all calls to this macro) * Add vim/emacs local variables in several places AFAICS this doesn't break the Python API build script, which was the objection to Jim Meyerling's previous patch to do much the same (http://www.redhat.com/archives/libvir-list/2006-March/msg00065.html). Rich.
On Mon, Mar 12, 2007 at 05:16:52PM +0000, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
* Fix qemudDebug when debug not enabled
Its not clear what was broken about the existing code ? This chunk:
#ifdef ENABLE_DEBUG #define qemudDebug(...) qemudLog(QEMUD_DEBUG, __VA_ARGS__) #else -#define qemudDebug(fmt, ...) do { } while(0); +#define qemudDebug(fmt, ...) #endif
Will break / silently change code semantics, if qemudDebug is used in situations like if (foo) qemudDebug("blah") wizz() Because when compiling without debug, it turns into if (foo) wizz() Regards, Dan. -- |=- Red Hat, Engineering, Emerging Technologies, Boston. +1 978 392 2496 -=| |=- Perl modules: http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ -=| |=- Projects: http://freshmeat.net/~danielpb/ -=| |=- GnuPG: 7D3B9505 F3C9 553F A1DA 4AC2 5648 23C1 B3DF F742 7D3B 9505 -=|
Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
On Mon, Mar 12, 2007 at 05:16:52PM +0000, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
* Fix qemudDebug when debug not enabled
Its not clear what was broken about the existing code ?
This chunk:
#ifdef ENABLE_DEBUG #define qemudDebug(...) qemudLog(QEMUD_DEBUG, __VA_ARGS__) #else -#define qemudDebug(fmt, ...) do { } while(0); +#define qemudDebug(fmt, ...) #endif
Will break / silently change code semantics, if qemudDebug is used in situations like
if (foo) qemudDebug("blah") wizz()
I mean this code _looks_ incorrect even if it actually isn't because of the extra ';' in the macro. If I type this into emacs and hit [tab] a few times I get: if (foo) qemudDebug("blah") wizz() so people are at least getting what they'd expect ... Anyway, I've just manually checked all calls to qemudDebug to see if any omit the trailing ';', and none do. Rich.
On Mon, Mar 12, 2007 at 05:32:38PM +0000, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
On Mon, Mar 12, 2007 at 05:16:52PM +0000, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
* Fix qemudDebug when debug not enabled
Its not clear what was broken about the existing code ?
This chunk:
#ifdef ENABLE_DEBUG #define qemudDebug(...) qemudLog(QEMUD_DEBUG, __VA_ARGS__) #else -#define qemudDebug(fmt, ...) do { } while(0); +#define qemudDebug(fmt, ...) #endif
Will break / silently change code semantics, if qemudDebug is used in situations like
if (foo) qemudDebug("blah") wizz()
I mean this code _looks_ incorrect even if it actually isn't because of the extra ';' in the macro.
The extra ; in the macro definition is bogus. I did actually mean to show if (foo) qemudDebug("blah"); Which would then turn into if (foo) ; Which causes GCC to complain with cc1: warnings being treated as errors driver.c: In function âqemudMonitorCommandâ: driver.c:101: warning: empty body in an if-statement If you have empty do{}while(0) then gcc won't complain. So all we need do is drop the extra ';' from the #define for qemudDebug, but keep the empty loop Dan. -- |=- Red Hat, Engineering, Emerging Technologies, Boston. +1 978 392 2496 -=| |=- Perl modules: http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ -=| |=- Projects: http://freshmeat.net/~danielpb/ -=| |=- GnuPG: 7D3B9505 F3C9 553F A1DA 4AC2 5648 23C1 B3DF F742 7D3B 9505 -=|
Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
Which would then turn into
if (foo) ;
Which causes GCC to complain with
cc1: warnings being treated as errors driver.c: In function ‘qemudMonitorCommand’: driver.c:101: warning: empty body in an if-statement
If you have empty do{}while(0) then gcc won't complain.
So all we need do is drop the extra ';' from the #define for qemudDebug, but keep the empty loop
Ah ... what a stupid warning! Yes agreed in that case. Can we apply with your modification then? Rich.
On Mon, Mar 12, 2007 at 05:47:10PM +0000, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
Which would then turn into
if (foo) ;
Which causes GCC to complain with
cc1: warnings being treated as errors driver.c: In function â??qemudMonitorCommandâ??: driver.c:101: warning: empty body in an if-statement
If you have empty do{}while(0) then gcc won't complain.
So all we need do is drop the extra ';' from the #define for qemudDebug, but keep the empty loop
Ah ... what a stupid warning!
Yes agreed in that case. Can we apply with your modification then?
Sure, that works for me. Dan. -- |=- Red Hat, Engineering, Emerging Technologies, Boston. +1 978 392 2496 -=| |=- Perl modules: http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ -=| |=- Projects: http://freshmeat.net/~danielpb/ -=| |=- GnuPG: 7D3B9505 F3C9 553F A1DA 4AC2 5648 23C1 B3DF F742 7D3B 9505 -=|
On Mon, 2007-03-12 at 17:43 +0000, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
if (foo) qemudDebug("blah");
Which would then turn into
if (foo) ;
Which causes GCC to complain with
cc1: warnings being treated as errors driver.c: In function ‘qemudMonitorCommand’: driver.c:101: warning: empty body in an if-statement
If you have empty do{}while(0) then gcc won't complain.
Yeah, that's why I added the do{}while(0) ... I shouldn't have included the semi-colon, though. Cheers, Mark.
participants (3)
-
Daniel P. Berrange -
Mark McLoughlin -
Richard W.M. Jones