Skip to content

Comments

Add test for typesafe variadics#2

Closed
ntrel wants to merge 1 commit intoGeod24:partially-revert-15613from
ntrel:resolve-test
Closed

Add test for typesafe variadics#2
ntrel wants to merge 1 commit intoGeod24:partially-revert-15613from
ntrel:resolve-test

Conversation

@ntrel
Copy link

@ntrel ntrel commented May 10, 2018

Current dmd passes this test, it seems your branch won't (but could probably be worked around).

@ntrel ntrel closed this May 31, 2018
@ntrel ntrel deleted the resolve-test branch May 31, 2018 10:45
Geod24 pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Jun 19, 2024
…inux. (dlang#16233)

You can see the correct declaration for ifaddrs on Linux here:

https://www.man7.org/linux/man-pages/man3/getifaddrs.3.html

What the fields are supposed to be named is ifa_broadaddr and
ifa_dstaddr. However, because Linux defines them using a union, it gives
them different names within the union - ifu_broadaddr and ifu_dstaddr -
and then #defines the proper names to access the union names.

What druntime did was use the union names - and then incorrectly name
ifu_dtsaddr as if_dstaddr. So, it was doubly wrong for that field.

The two approaches that we could take here would be to either

1. Turn the union into a type so that we could have an ifa_ifu field to
   allow accessing the ifu_* names that way - as is technically possible
   in C - and then add wrapper functions with the ifa_* names (since we
   couldn't use an alias to access members of the union member
   variable).

2. Just rename the fields to ifa_* and ignore the fact that you can
   technically access the ifu_* fields via the union name in C.

The simpler approach is #2, so that's what this commit does. I'm pretty
sure that the ability to access the ifu_* fields via the union name is
just an implementation detail - particularly since other platforms just
declare the ifa_* names without using a union at all.

Either way, deprecated aliases are provided so that existing code
doesn't break.
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant