Re: [PATCH cb/pedantic-build-for-developers] lazyload.h: fix warnings about mismatching function pointer types
From: Johannes Sixt <hidden>
Date: 2021-09-22 21:21:37
Am 22.09.21 um 22:16 schrieb Carlo Arenas:
On Wed, Sep 22, 2021 at 12:56 PM Johannes Sixt [off-list ref] wrote:quoted
Here, GCC warns about every use of the INIT_PROC_ADDR macro, for example: In file included from compat/mingw.c:8: compat/mingw.c: In function 'mingw_strftime': compat/win32/lazyload.h:38:12: warning: assignment to 'size_t (*)(char *, size_t, const char *, const struct tm *)' {aka 'long long unsigned int (*)(char *, long long unsigned int, const char *, const struct tm *)'} from incompatible pointer type 'FARPROC' {aka 'long long int (*)()'} [-Wincompatible-pointer-types] 38 | (function = get_proc_addr(&proc_addr_##function)) | ^ compat/mingw.c:1014:6: note: in expansion of macro 'INIT_PROC_ADDR' 1014 | if (INIT_PROC_ADDR(strftime)) | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~did you have CFLAGS adding -Wincompatible-pointer-types explicitly?
I don't know of the top of my head (am not at that Windows box right now). I am fairly certain that I do not have DEVELOPER set.
This is the reason why the code that got merged to master had -Wno for this case.quoted
(message wrapper for convenience). Insert a cast to keep the compiler happy. A cast is fine in these cases because they are generic function pointer values that have been looked up in a DLL.I have a more complete "fix" which I got stuck testing GGG[1]; you are likely going to also hit -Wcast-function-type otherwise.
I think that the correct solution is that get_proc_addr() returns void*, not FARPROC. Then either no cast is needed (because void* can be converted to function pointer type implicitly) or a cast is needed and that is then not between incompatible function pointer types and should not trigger -Wcast-function-type, theoretically.
quoted
--- How can this have worked ever without a warning?POSIX have a specific exception that allows (void *) for this,...
Sure, but as you can see in the warning message, FARPROC is not void*, but a somewhat generic function pointer type. I was not questioning the assignment of function pointer values of different types, but the absence of a warning. -- Hannes