The aim is to use the correct vasprintf implementation for z/OS libc++, where a copy of va_list ap is needed. In particular, it avoids the potential that the initial internal call to vsnprintf will modify ap and the subsequent call to vsnprintf will use that modified ap.
Details
- Reviewers
zibi ldionne • Quuxplusone - Group Reviewers
Restricted Project - Commits
- rGf6af5efcec41: [SystemZ][z/OS] vasprintf fix libc++
Diff Detail
Event Timeline
We have the same issue in __libcpp_vasprintf in libcxx/src/support/win32/locale_win32.cpp - we should fix both in one go.
libcxx/include/__support/ibm/xlocale.h | ||
---|---|---|
269–283 | Is there a reason for calling vsnprintf twice unconditionally now instead of doing the same thing as before, but providing a copy of the va_list for the first call? In other words, why not do: static inline int vasprintf(char **strp, const char *fmt, va_list ap) { const size_t buff_size = 256; if ((*strp = (char *)malloc(buff_size)) == NULL) { return -1; } va_list ap_copy; va_copy(ap_copy, ap); int str_size = vsnprintf(*strp, buff_size, fmt, ap_copy); va_end(ap_copy); if (str_size >= buff_size) { if ((*strp = (char *)realloc(*strp, str_size + 1)) == NULL) { return -1; } str_size = vsnprintf(*strp, str_size + 1, fmt, ap); } return str_size; } |
Any ideas as to why the CI build failed with mainly FileNotFoundError for Apple system? The changes seem unrelated.
libcxx/src/support/win32/locale_win32.cpp | ||
---|---|---|
122 ↗ | (On Diff #328520) | I don't think you need this diff. We receive a va_list; we pass it (once) to __libcpp_vasprintf. One source, one sink. No copy should be needed. However, you do need to modify __libcpp_vasprintf in src/support/win32/support.cpp per Louis' comment. |
@ldionne is on vacation this month, so don't expect anything from him until April, presumably.
@curdeius perhaps?
However, (1) since Louis did have specific "requested changes," it might be appropriate to wait for him before landing this, anyway.
(2) this varargs stuff is similar to D98097 — just in a different part of the codebase — and you might want to compare the two snippets and see if they could be even further harmonized. (Perhaps by leaving review comments on D98097.)