Re: [XEN PATCH v2 2/3] x86/uaccess: replace __{get,put}_user_bad() with STATIC_ASSERT_UNREACHABLE()

[Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>]

On 14.02.2024 17:11, Federico Serafini wrote:
> I did some tries with example programs
> and the assembler error always points to file and line
> of the most enclosing function that caused the failure.
> If I am not missing something, using __FILE__ and __LINE__ does not add
> any information.
> 
> Therefore, if the new macro is used within the body of other macros,
> then the resulting assembler error will point to the source of
> the problem (e.g., the site of a bogus call to put_guest()).
> 
> In my opinion, converting put_guest() &Co. to inline functions is not
> convenient: the assembler error will point to the most enclosing
> function that would be put_unsafe_size(), instead of pointing to the
> source of the problem.

The assembler error will point to where the inline function was expanded,
sure. __FILE__ / __LINE__ ought to point to that inline function (where
the macro was used) then, though?

Jan