Re: [Nasm-devel] clang patches

[Daniel L. <da...@ma...>]

> On 8 Oct 2016, at 06:39, H. Peter Anvin <hp...@zy...> wrote:
> 
> On 10/07/16 21:35, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>> 
>> What happens if you do, given that it defined __GNUC__ and therefore
>> claims to be compatible with gcc?
>> 
> 
> +#if defined(__clang__)
> +# define never_null __attribute__((returns_nonnull))
> +# define safe_alloc never_null __attribute__((malloc))
> +# define safe_malloc(s)
> +# define safe_malloc2(s1,s2)
> +# define safe_realloc(s)
> 
> The latter should be safe_alloc and never_null as appropriate, though,
> even if alloc_size() isn't defined.

Here is an updated patch, I somehow missed those uses. Thanks for catching that.

> Alternatively, we could define allocsize() as a macro... but that's
> probably more trouble than it's worth.

I opted for simplicity now. I suppose this can be changed later on if needed.

-- 
daniel