On 11/2/2025 7:05 AM, Christian Ullrich wrote:
> Hello,
>
> the current MSVC compiler deems it necessary to issue
>
> warning C4053: one void operand for '?:'
>
> for a line with CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(). This boils down to this bit of
> miscadmin.h (line 116 in master):
>
> #define INTERRUPTS_PENDING_CONDITION() \
> (unlikely(UNBLOCKED_SIGNAL_QUEUE()) ?
> pgwin32_dispatch_queued_signals() : 0, \
> unlikely(InterruptPending))
> #endif
>
> The C spec says that of the possible results of the :? operator, either
> none or both can be void, and pgwin32_dispatch_queued_signals() is void
> (and has been as far back as I can find it).
>
> Does that matter?
>
>
Yeah, this is a bug, or at least a spec violation. We should fix it in
my opinion-- it's non-conforming C. Others may disagree, though.
It happens to work because the comma operator discards the result
anyway, but MSVC is right to complain.
This isn't a new thing with modern C standards, BTW --- the rule
about not mixing void and non-void operands in ?: has been there
since C89. We've just been getting away with it because most
compilers don't complain when the result is discarded by the
comma operator anyway.
I see a couple of ways to fix it:
1. Cast both arms to void:
#define INTERRUPTS_PENDING_CONDITION() \
(unlikely(UNBLOCKED_SIGNAL_QUEUE()) ? \
(pgwin32_dispatch_queued_signals(), (void)0) : (void)0, \
unlikely(InterruptPending))
2. Restructure to use && instead of ?::
#define INTERRUPTS_PENDING_CONDITION() \
(unlikely(UNBLOCKED_SIGNAL_QUEUE()) && \
(pgwin32_dispatch_queued_signals(), true), \
unlikely(InterruptPending))
3. Just make it an inline function instead of a macro.
I'd lean towards #2 --- it's cleaner and avoids the whole issue.
The semantics are the same since we're only calling the function
for its side-effects.
Thoughts?
Bryan Green
