Re: rwlock(9) and mutex(9) definitions

On Wed, Oct 27, 2021 at 08:11:13AM +0300, Konstantin Belousov wrote:
K> > Okay, let's put return aside. This would compile with true
K> > functions (e.g. WITNESS), otherwise not:
K> > 
K> > void
K> > something(bool clue)
K> > {
K> > 	clue ? rw_rlock(lock) : rw_wlock(lock);
K> > }
K> > 
K> > And this is correct code per 6.5.15.
K> 
K> So why cannot you write it as 
K> ...
K> 	if (clue)
K> 		rw_rlock(lock);
K> 	else
K> 		rw_wlock(lock);

Of course I can. But manual page rwlock(9) says I can treat them as functions, thus
use in conditional operator.

My point is that the fact that I can work around this, doesn't justify the
problem not being fixed.

What is a downside of wrapping them in "__extension__ ({ })"?

-- 
Gleb Smirnoff