Re: [PATCH] error handling: Use TFR() macro where applicable

[Peter Maydell]

On Wed, 17 Aug 2022 at 15:49, Nikita Ivanov <nivanov@cloudlinux.com> wrote:
>
> Well...
>
> What exactly is still under discussion? In my perspective, the main pitfalls 
> have been resolved:
>
> 0. All possible places where TFR() macro could be applied are covered.
> 1. Macro has been renamed in order to be more transparent. The name has been 
> chosen in comparison with a similar glibc macro.
> 2. The macro itself has been refactored, in order to replace it entirely with 
> glibc alternative.
> 3. Problems with statement/expressions differences in qemu and glibc 
> implementation have been resolved.
>
> Is there any room for improvement?

(a) do we want the statement version or the expression version?
(b) do we want "use the glibc one, with same-semantics version for
compatibility", or do we want "we have our own thing"?

I would have voted for following glibc, except that it does
that cast-to-long thing, which is incorrect behaviour when
long is 32 bits and the return value from the function being
tested is 64 bits.

thanks
-- PMM