Re: SA_RESETHAND

[Bruno Haible]

Paul Eggert wrote:
> > - Should glibc define SA_RESETHAND as ((int)0x80000000) ?
> >    Then SA_RESETHAND could not be used in preprocessor directives any more.
> 
> POSIX would allow that, as it doesn't require SA_RESETHAND to be usable 
> in preprocessor directives. However, too much software uses it that way 
> anyway (e.g., squid/src/tools.cc has "#if SA_RESETHAND == 0 && 
> !_SQUID_WINDOWS_"). So I have my doubts whether this change would be 
> adopted.
> 
> > - Should clang be silent about this case of implicit conversion?
> 
> That would solve the problem, although the people who want lots of 
> warnings might want one here too.
> 
> > - Should we discourage users from using 
> > -fsanitize=implicit-integer-sign-change?
> 
> For me that flag tends to cause more problem than it cures. So we could 
> tell people that Gnulib won't worry about that warning.

Thanks for your evaluation. I think this should best be fixed by clang, and
therefore have registered a clang bug:
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=46025

Bruno