From: Karsten Blees Date: Thu, 05 Jun 2014 22:00:51 GMT Subject: Re: [PATCH] mingw: redefine the wrapper macro after the corresponding function Message-ID: <5390E893.9060600@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <5390A139.2090406@kdbg.org> Am 05.06.2014 18:56, schrieb Johannes Sixt: > Am 05.06.2014 10:05, schrieb Stepan Kasal: >> mingw.c defines several wrapper functionsi, like mingw_unlink(). >> These wrappers are deployed by macros like this: >> #define unlink mingw_unlink >> The function itself is preceded by #undef, leaving the wrapper out >> of the game for the rest of mingw.c. >> >> This was not probably intentional; for example, there are three >> calls to open() below the definition mingw_open() that probably >> have no reason to circumvent the wrapper. >> OTOH, there is one call to gethostbyname() before it was undefined; >> probably happy that it actually calls mingw_gethostbyname(). >> >> This patch adds back the #define after each wrapper definition. >> >> Signed-off-by: Stepan Kasal >> --- >> compat/mingw.c | 20 ++++++++++++++++++++ >> 1 file changed, 20 insertions(+) >> >> diff --git a/compat/mingw.c b/compat/mingw.c >> index a0e13bc..e7193c0 100644 >> --- a/compat/mingw.c >> +++ b/compat/mingw.c >> @@ -224,6 +224,7 @@ int mingw_unlink(const char *pathname) >> ret = unlink(pathname); >> return ret; >> } >> +#define unlink mingw_unlink > (etc...) > > I don't particularly like this approach: It robs the precise control of > which function we can invoke from other places in mingw.c. > > Within mingw.c, if some other function inside mingw.c wants to use > mingw_unlink, then it should be written as 'mingw_unlink(foo)', not > 'unlink(foo)'. > I very much like this approach. In fact, we already do this for e.g. mingw_raise. > So, IMO the macros should be #undef'ed at the top of the file, and all > users (like the open() and gethostbyname() invocations that you > identified) should be audited and changed to call the function they > actually need (i.e., the system open vs. mingw_open). > I'm sceptical of moving all #undef's to the top. Other callers would typically want the wrapped version (i.e. mingw_*). At least I can't think of a scenario in which a higher level function would want to bypass the wrapper... -- -- *** Please reply-to-all at all times *** *** (do not pretend to know who is subscribed and who is not) *** *** Please avoid top-posting. *** The msysGit Wiki is here: https://github.com/msysgit/msysgit/wiki - Github accounts are free. You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "msysGit" group. To post to this group, send email to msysgit@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to msysgit+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com For more options, and view previous threads, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/msysgit?hl=en_US?hl=en --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "msysGit" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to msysgit+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.