Re: Splitting common-main (Was: Re: [PATCH RFC v2 1/4] common-main: split common_exit() into a new file)

> Hi, I'd like to revisit this as it's also relevant to a non-unit-test
> issue (`make fuzz-all` is currently broken). I have some questions
> inline below:
> 
> On 2023.05.18 10:17, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>> steadmon@google.com writes:
>>
>>> It is convenient to have common_exit() in its own object file so that
>>> standalone programs may link to it (and any other object files that
>>> depend on it) while still having their own independent main() function.
>>
>> I am not so sure if this is a good direction to go in, though.  The
>> common_exit() function does two things that are very specific to and
>> dependent on what Git runtime has supposed to have done, like
>> initializing trace2 subsystem and linking with usage.c to make
>> bug_called_must_BUG exist.
> 
> True. We won't call common_exit() unless we're trying to exit() from a
> file that also includes git-compat-util.h, but I guess that's not a
> guarantee that trace2 is initialized or that usage.o is linked.
> 
>> I understand that a third-party or standalone non-Git programs may
>> want to do _more_ than what our main() does when starting up, but it
>> should be doable if make our main() call out to a hook function,
>> whose definition in Git is a no-op, that can be replaced by their
>> own implementation to do whatever they want to happen in main(), no?
>>
>> The reason why I am not comfortable with this patch is because I
>> cannot say why this split is better than other possible split.  For
>> example, we could instead split only our 'main' out to a separate
>> file, say "main.c", and put main.o together with common-main.o to
>> libgit.a to be found by the linker, and that arrangement will also
>> help your "standalone programs" having their own main() function.
>> Now with these two possible ways to split (and there may be other
>> split that may be even more convenient; I simply do not know), which
>> one is better, and what's the argument for each approach?
> 
> Sorry, I don't think I'm understanding your proposal here properly,
> please let me know where I'm going wrong: isn't this functionally
> equivalent to my patch, just with different filenames? Now main() would
> live in main.c (vs. my common-main.c), while check_bug_if_BUG() and
> common_exit() would live in common-main.c (now a misnomer, vs. my
> common-exit.c). I'm not following how that changes anything so I'm
> pretty sure I've misunderstood.
> 
> The issue I was trying to solve (whether for a unit-test framework or
> for the fuzzing engine) is that we don't have direct control over their
> main(), and so we can't rename it to avoid conflicts with our main().
> 
> I guess there may be some linker magic we could do to avoid the conflict
> and have (our) main() call (their, renamed) main()? I don't know offhand
> if that's actually possible, just speculating. Even if possible, it
> feels more complicated to me, but again that may just be due to my lack
> of linker knowledge.