Commit 251478a
build: tolerate use of _Generic from glibc 2.43 with Clang
When building with `make DEVELOPER=1` we explicitly pass "-std=gnu99" to
the compiler so that we don't start leaning on features exposed by more
recent versions of the C standard. Unfortunately though, glibc 2.43
started to use type-generic expressions. This works alright with GCC,
but when compiling with Clang this leads to errors:
$ make DEVELOPER=1 CC=clang
CC daemon.o
In file included from daemon.c:3:
./git-compat-util.h:344:11: error: '_Generic' is a C11 extension [-Werror,-Wc11-extensions]
344 | return !!strchr(path, '/');
| ^
/usr/include/string.h:265:3: note: expanded from macro 'strchr'
265 | __glibc_const_generic (S, const char *, strchr (S, C))
| ^
/usr/include/x86_64-linux-gnu/sys/cdefs.h:838:3: note: expanded from macro '__glibc_const_generic'
838 | _Generic (0 ? (PTR) : (void *) 1, \
| ^
In theory, the `__glibc_const_generic` macro does have feature gating:
#if !defined __cplusplus \
&& (__GNUC_PREREQ (4, 9) \
|| __glibc_has_extension (c_generic_selections) \
|| (!defined __GNUC__ && defined __STDC_VERSION__ \
&& __STDC_VERSION__ >= 201112L))
# define __HAVE_GENERIC_SELECTION 1
#else
# define __HAVE_GENERIC_SELECTION 0
#endif
But this feature gating isn't effective because `_has_extension()` will
always evaluate to true as C generics _are_ available as a language
extension to GNU C99 when using Clang. This would have been different if
`_has_feature()` was used instead, in which case it would have properly
evaluated to `false`.
Unfortunately, there is no easy way for us to work around the warning.
We cannot define `__HAVE_GENERIC_SELECTION` ourselves as that would lead
to a redefinition, and given that the conditions are or'd together we
cannot disable any of those, either.
Instead, work around the issue by not using -std=gnu99 with Clang when
using the Makefile and by disabling warnings about C11 extensions when
using Meson. This isn't ideal, but we at least retain the ability to
detect the (mis-)use of features from newer standards with GCC.
An alternative to this might be to simply bump the required C standard
to C11, which is 15 years old by now and should have support on most
platforms out there. But some more esoteric platforms may not have it.
Signed-off-by: Patrick Steinhardt <ps@pks.im>
Signed-off-by: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>1 parent 9667258 commit 251478a
2 files changed
Lines changed: 10 additions & 1 deletion
| Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change | |
|---|---|---|---|
| |||
21 | 21 | | |
22 | 22 | | |
23 | 23 | | |
24 | | - | |
| 24 | + | |
25 | 25 | | |
26 | 26 | | |
27 | 27 | | |
28 | 28 | | |
29 | 29 | | |
30 | 30 | | |
31 | 31 | | |
| 32 | + | |
| 33 | + | |
| 34 | + | |
32 | 35 | | |
33 | 36 | | |
34 | 37 | | |
| |||
| Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change | |
|---|---|---|---|
| |||
873 | 873 | | |
874 | 874 | | |
875 | 875 | | |
| 876 | + | |
| 877 | + | |
| 878 | + | |
| 879 | + | |
| 880 | + | |
| 881 | + | |
876 | 882 | | |
877 | 883 | | |
878 | 884 | | |
| |||
0 commit comments