Pino Toscano:
> In data martedì 14 novembre 2017 11:14:00 CET, Ximin Luo ha scritto:It's not my "own echo chamber", I pointed you to lots of docs that confirm your usage of __FILE__ is not appropriate here.
>> You're using __FILE__ inappropriately, none of the documentation
>> guarantees or implies that you can access __FILE__ as a real
>> filesystem path. "Surely for relative paths" is your justification
>> for your own broken behaviour.
>
> Again, this is your own echo chamber: "__FILE__ is broken, everybody
> using it is broken no matter what".
>
Adrian Bunk also mentioned the C89 to me on IRC yesterday. Again, the wording gives no guarantee that __FILE__ should represent a real filesystem path.
If my previous words were a bit terse I am sorry for that, but I don't appreciate comments like "Any of your solutions get a big, fat, and giant nope" after trying to explain the problem and present you with no less than 4 alternative simple unintrusive solutions.
I'm in the process of getting the patch into GCC. We certainly don't intend to keep this as a Debian-specific thing. [1] If they don't accept it, you don't need to patch your package - but I'd say the use of __FILE__ is still not the best, since no documentation implies it can be used to find files, and all the examples only mention error messages.
>> You can either accept my one line patch suggestion, or fix it some
>> other way.
>
> I am not interested in working around broken changes introduced blindly
> for very doubtful reasons.
>
>> I'm not going to change the GCC patch, it does nothing wrong.
>
> Let me add also another POV to this approach: do you really expect
> Debian to carry this important diversion for GCC upstream? I really
> doubt GCC will accept this.
>
And to be clear, in case Holger's earlier messages were missed, the FTBFS is currently only on tests.r-b.org and not on the official Debian archive.