Re: SA_RESETHAND

[Paul Eggert]

On 5/21/20 8:15 AM, Bruno Haible wrote:

> - Should glibc define SA_RESETHAND as ((int)0x80000000) ?
>    Then SA_RESETHAND could not be used in preprocessor directives any more.

POSIX would allow that, as it doesn't require SA_RESETHAND to be usable 
in preprocessor directives. However, too much software uses it that way 
anyway (e.g., squid/src/tools.cc has "#if SA_RESETHAND == 0 && 
!_SQUID_WINDOWS_"). So I have my doubts whether this change would be 
adopted.

> - Should clang be silent about this case of implicit conversion?

That would solve the problem, although the people who want lots of 
warnings might want one here too.

> - Should we discourage users from using -fsanitize=implicit-integer-sign-change?

For me that flag tends to cause more problem than it cures. So we could 
tell people that Gnulib won't worry about that warning.