[LTP] [PATCH 1/2] SAFE_MACROS: Redirect to tst_brk_() early

[Jan Stancek <jstancek@redhat.com>]

----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jan Stancek" <jstancek@redhat.com>
> To: "Cyril Hrubis" <chrubis@suse.cz>
> Cc: ltp@lists.linux.it
> Sent: Friday, 10 February, 2017 9:27:07 AM
> Subject: Re: [LTP] [PATCH 1/2] SAFE_MACROS: Redirect to tst_brk_() early
> 
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Cyril Hrubis" <chrubis@suse.cz>
> > To: "Jan Stancek" <jstancek@redhat.com>
> > Cc: ltp@lists.linux.it
> > Sent: Thursday, 9 February, 2017 5:11:20 PM
> > Subject: Re: [LTP] [PATCH 1/2] SAFE_MACROS: Redirect to tst_brk_() early
> > 
> > Hi!
> > > > +#ifndef BRKM_REDIRECT_H__
> > > > +#define BRKM_REDIRECT_H__
> > > > +
> > > > +#include "ltp_priv.h"
> > > > +
> > > > +#ifdef tst_brkm
> > > > +# undef tst_brkm
> > > > +#endif
> > > > +
> > > > +#define tst_brkm(flags, cleanup, fmt, ...) do { \
> > > > +	if (tst_test) \
> > > > +		tst_brk_(__FILE__, __LINE__, flags, fmt, ##__VA_ARGS__); \
> > > > +	else \
> > > > +                tst_brkm_(__FILE__, __LINE__, flags, cleanup, fmt,
> > > > ##__VA_ARGS__); \
> > > > +	} while (0)
> > > 
> > > Stil trying to wrap my head around all this, but after first look,..
> > > How does this related to "tst_brkm_" from lib/tst_res.c?
> > > Can it be simplified? It doesn't look like we can reach newlib branch
> > > now, because tst_test condition is now in tst_brkm macro.
> > 
> > Well there more library code shared between oldlib and newlib than
> > SAFE_MACROS. So we can still reach tst_brkm_() from newlib, for instance
> > tst_device, tst_brkm, ... Hence the redirection has to stay.
> 
> Can't we use macro above directly in include/old.test.h and avoid all
> redefinitions later? We would move some common stuff from ltp_priv.h
> to include/ header, like forward declaration of tst_test and tst_brk_,
> but you get the idea: no macro redefinitions would be needed.

.. which brings back "control reaches end of non-void function" warnings :-/.