DINGUX: Only evaluate the toupper() macro argument once #3961
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
toupper() callers should avoid putting a side-effect expression there, but in practice it sometimes happen, so making the macro safer can't hurt. This uses a GCC statement expression, but this port only uses GCC anyway.
dwatteau
force-pushed
the
fix/dingux-tolower-macro-only-evaluate-once
branch
from
7ffc795
to
65bd8d1
Compare
dwatteau
changed the title
|
Thank you |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
There are currently some
tolower()ortoupper()calls where its argument has some side effects:The Dingux/OpenDingux port currently defines its own
toupper()macro "to avoid triggering an assert in uClibc dingux library", but it currently does so this way:and so if
(c)has side effects, they're going to happen more times than intended on this platform.Fixing the toupper()/tolower() callers is a solution, but sometimes the error comes back, so making a safer macro shouldn't hurt.
The following PR does so with a GCC statement expression. That's a GCC-ism by definition (clang also accepts it), but AFAICS this port is only ever built with GCC anyway, and we're already in the middle of a hack in a
DINGUXifdef.__extension__should make-pedantichappy.I don't have any device to test this, though. I see that there was some OpenDingux port activity in 2021.