On Sat, Nov 13, 2021 at 9:37 PM David Malcolm wrote:
>
> #define __user __attribute__((untrusted))
>
> where my patched GCC treats
> T *
> vs
> T __attribute__((untrusted)) *
> as being different types and thus the C frontend can complain (even without
> -fanalyzer) about e.g.:
This one sou
On Sat, Sep 7, 2019 at 3:11 PM Segher Boessenkool
wrote:
>
> I wouldn't. Please stop using that straw man. I'm not saying version
> checks are good, or useful for most things. I am saying they are not.
>
> Predefined compiler symbols to do version checking (of a feature) is
> just a lesser inst
On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 6:30 PM Segher Boessenkool
wrote:
>
> (Which isn't the C++ standard yet, okay).
At this stage, it pretty much is. It is basically bug fixing at this point.
> No, that is not what it does. A user defines such a macro, and that
> makes the library change behaviour.
That is
On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 2:23 PM Segher Boessenkool
wrote:
>
> I can't find anything with "feature" and "macros" in the C++ standard,
> it's "predefined macros" there I guess? In C, it is also "predefined
> macros" in general, and there is "conditional feature macros".
They are introduced in C++20
On Thu, Sep 5, 2019 at 5:52 PM Miguel Ojeda
wrote:
>
> Yes and no. GNU libc defines feature test macros like you say, but
> C++'s feature macros are like Rasmus/Nick are saying. I think libc's
> definition is weird, I would call those "feature selection macros"
On Thu, Sep 5, 2019 at 3:45 PM Segher Boessenkool
wrote:
>
> [ That's not what a feature test macro is; a feature test macro allows the
> user to select some optional behaviour. Things like _GNU_SOURCE. ]
Yes and no. GNU libc defines feature test macros like you say, but
C++'s feature macros
