On Sun, Sep 17, 2023 at 07:49:57AM +0200, Thomas Weißschuh wrote:
On 2023-09-17 04:58:51+0200, Willy Tarreau wrote:
On Thu, Sep 14, 2023 at 06:01:18PM +0200, Thomas Weißschuh wrote:
The ENOSYS fallback code does not use its functions parameters. This can lead to compiler warnings about unused parameters.
Explicitly avoid these warnings.
Just out of curiosity, did you find a valid case for enabling this warning or were you trying various combinations ? I'm asking because I've never seen it enabled anywhere given that it's probably the most useless and unusable warning: as soon as you're dealing with function pointers, you start to have multiple functions with a similar prototype, some of which just don't need certain arguments, and the only way to shut the warning is to significantly uglify the code.
nolibc-test uses it currently and I also used it in some projects.
OK then let's handle it.
@@ -934,6 +960,11 @@ int sys_select(int nfds, fd_set *rfds, fd_set *wfds, fd_set *efds, struct timeva #endif return my_syscall5(__NR__newselect, nfds, rfds, wfds, efds, timeout); #else
- return no_syscall5(nfds, rfds, wfds, efds, timeout);
- return -ENOSYS;
#endif
What do you think ?
The idea sounds good. But "no_syscall5" sounds a bit non-obvious to me.
Of course, I was just trying to illustrate. I'm never good at giving names.
Maybe the macro-equivalent of this?
static inline int __nolibc_enosys(...) { return -ENOSYS; }
The only-vararg function unfortunately needs C23 so we can't use it.
It's clear to the users that this is about ENOSYS and we don't need a bunch of new macros similar.
I like it, I didn't think about varargs, it's an excellent idea! Let's just do simpler, start with a first arg "syscall_num" that we may later reuse for debugging, and just mark this one unused:
static inline int __nolibc_enosys(int syscall_num, ...) { (void)syscall_num; return -ENOSYS; }
Willy