Re: [PATCH] error handling: Use TFR() macro where applicable

[Christian Schoenebeck <qemu_oss@crudebyte.com>]

On Mittwoch, 17. August 2022 17:55:24 CEST Peter Maydell wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Aug 2022 at 15:49, Nikita Ivanov <nivanov@cloudlinux.com> wrote:
> > Well...
> > 
> > What exactly is still under discussion? In my perspective, the main
> > pitfalls have been resolved:
> > 
> > 0. All possible places where TFR() macro could be applied are covered.
> > 1. Macro has been renamed in order to be more transparent. The name has
> > been chosen in comparison with a similar glibc macro. 2. The macro itself
> > has been refactored, in order to replace it entirely with glibc
> > alternative. 3. Problems with statement/expressions differences in qemu
> > and glibc implementation have been resolved.
> > 
> > Is there any room for improvement?
> 
> (a) do we want the statement version or the expression version?

I think the tendency was in favour for the expression version? Markus made it 
clear that the glibc version indeed may evaluate as an expression (GCC 
extension).

> (b) do we want "use the glibc one, with same-semantics version for
> compatibility", or do we want "we have our own thing"?
> 
> I would have voted for following glibc, except that it does
> that cast-to-long thing, which is incorrect behaviour when
> long is 32 bits and the return value from the function being
> tested is 64 bits.

Then simply int64_t as a type instead, and as "our own thing"?

Best regards,
Christian Schoenebeck