Last field needs to be pointer-size to match GHashTableIter. This happened
to work for most architecture due to alignment padding/pointer size, but
for CHERI targets with 128-bit pointers RealIter ends up being smaller
than GHashTableIter.
Helps: https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/glib/-/issues/2842
GObject-Introspection seems to become confused by the nested conditional
followed by an `#elif` clause for the outer conditional, and issues
this warning:
.../gtimezone.c:830: mismatched #elif defined (G_OS_WIN32)
Signed-off-by: Simon McVittie <smcv@collabora.com>
GObject-Introspection and gtk-doc both parse C headers using regular
expressions, so they can easily be confused by non-trivial conditions.
GObject-Introspection warns about this:
.../gstrfuncs.h:151: the __GI_SCANNER__ constant should only be used with simple #ifdef or #endif: #if !defined (__GTK_DOC_IGNORE__) && !defined (__GI_SCANNER__)
In this case it's very easy to convert the compound expression into
nesting.
Signed-off-by: Simon McVittie <smcv@collabora.com>
The canonical directory separator is a backslash, but some Windows APIs
allow either, interchangeably. Do the same here.
Resolves: https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/glib/-/issues/2914
Signed-off-by: Simon McVittie <smcv@collabora.com>
Glib does not yet have a well defined ABI/API for architectures
where gsize != guintptr (e.g. CHERI). To enable working on bringup
for new architectures this assertion can be disabled with
`-DG_ENABLE_EXPERIMENTAL_ABI_COMPILATION`.
See https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/glib/-/issues/2842
[smcv: Apply review comments from pwithnall]
Signed-off-by: Simon McVittie <smcv@collabora.com>
On closer inspection, these are redundant with stricter assertions that I
added in commit bd1e2a98 "glib-init: Statically assert more facts about
standard types", which assert that sizeof (gintptr) == sizeof (void *).
As far as I can tell, a sufficiently pedantic interpretation of Standard
C doesn't actually require (u)intptr_t to be the same size as a pointer:
it only requires that pointers can be losslessly stored in a (u)intptr_t,
which a sufficiently pathological ABI could implement by having (for
example) 32-bit pointers and a 64-bit uintptr_t just to troll us. However,
I'm fairly confident that no practically useful ABI would do this,
and certainly nobody has complained about this assertion since 2020.
Similarly, Standard C might permit an ABI where 64-bit pointers have the
first 32 bits always-zero and therefore storing the remaining bits in a
32-bit uintptr_t is lossless, but again, that would be pathological.
This reverts commit da3fc59544.
Signed-off-by: Simon McVittie <smcv@collabora.com>
Do not use 4-spaces indentation for return and argument descriptions, to
avoid getting rendered as preformatted blocks.
Annotate code examples with their language, for syntax highlighting.
Isolate the first paragraph to give a short description.
Do not show just what not to do: show what to do instead, otherwise
people won't know how to fix their code.
Make sure to link to an explanation of the TOCTOU class of bugs;
Wikipedia is as good a place as any.
Since gmodule-visibility.h is now a custom target and produced at
buildtime, it might not always exist in time for use in other source
files. This was the case for gio-inotify.
Add it as an additional source file to ensure in-time generation.
According to the docs, g_slice_free1() is supposed to do nothing if
@mem_block is NULL, but we still try to zero it in case we're using
g_mem_gc_friendly.
So avoid this case.
Closes: #2908
Since commit 45b5a6c0 GSlice is just a wrapper to g_malloc0/g_free, so
there's no point to use a different implementation for UNIXes vs
windows.
This reverts commit 3b7af4dd5d.
Currently, inbuf_size and outbuf_size are not documented as not
nullable, but they are expected to be so, which might lead to unexpected
crashes. Moreover, outbuf itself is also expected to not be null, so
this commit adds the appropriate GI annotations and early returns on
failed preconditions.
If libc supports `free_sized()`, this could mean that freeing slices is
a bit more performant. If not, it falls back to using `free()`.
Signed-off-by: Philip Withnall <pwithnall@endlessos.org>
