Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2026 13:38:49 +0200 From: Dimitry Andric <dim@FreeBSD.org> To: Nuno Teixeira <eduardo@freebsd.org> Cc: src-committers@freebsd.org, dev-commits-src-all@freebsd.org, dev-commits-src-main@freebsd.org Subject: Re: git: 86326398b73b - main - Merge commit 63c29df8eceb from llvm git (by Dmitry Polukhin): Message-ID: <DC8F701E-B485-442D-A2A7-CE787B2CF169@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <CAFDf7ULfSAryJH6xEOe=UFU=r4_tDODHpSwm7LHA_6GLoxiYDA@mail.gmail.com> References: <6a1dbdb4.18f1f.11efe144@gitrepo.freebsd.org> <CAFDf7ULfSAryJH6xEOe=UFU=r4_tDODHpSwm7LHA_6GLoxiYDA@mail.gmail.com>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
On 4 Jun 2026, at 12:53, Nuno Teixeira <eduardo@freebsd.org> wrote: > > Not sure if it is related but I'm seing some ports failing recently with errors bellow. > ( error: no viable conversion from ... to 'bool' ) > > Similar fails appears at pkg-fallout: > > https://pkg-status.freebsd.org/beefy24/data/main-amd64-default/p226b23044ee7_s67df3130159/logs/binaryen-130.log > https://pkg-status.freebsd.org/beefy24/data/main-amd64-default/p226b23044ee7_s67df3130159/logs/encryptpad-0.5.0.4_6.log > > From node24 on main-n286352-73e0d6b44038: > ``` > c++ -o /wrkdirs/usr/ports/www/node24/work/node-v24.16.0/out/Release/obj.target/node_mksnapshot/tools/snapshot/node_mksnapshot.o ../tools/snapshot/node_mksnapshot.cc '-D_GLIBCXX_USE_CXX11_ABI=1' '-D_FILE_OFFSET_BITS=64' '-DNODE_OPENSSL_CONF_NAME=nodejs_conf' '-DNODE_OPENSSL_CERT_STORE' '-DICU_NO_USER_DATA_OVERRIDE' '-D__STDC_FORMAT_MACROS' '-DNODE_WANT_INTERNALS=1' '-DNODE_MKSNAPSHOT_USE_ARRAY_LITERALS=1' '-DHAVE_OPENSSL=1' '-DNODE_USE_NODE_CODE_CACHE=1' '-DHAVE_INSPECTOR=1' '-D__POSIX__' '-DNODE_USE_V8_PLATFORM=1' '-DNODE_HAVE_I18N_SUPPORT=1' '-DHAVE_AMARO=1' '-DHAVE_SQLITE=1' '-DHAVE_QUIC=0' -I../src -I../tools/msvs/genfiles > -I../deps/v8/include -I../deps/cares/include -I../deps/uv/include -I../deps/ncrypto -I../deps/v8/third_party/simdutf -Wall -Wextra -Wno-unused-parameter -pthread -Wall -Wextra -Wno-unused-parameter -Werror=undefined-inline -Werror=extra-semi -Werror=ctad-maybe-unsupported -m64 -O3 -fno-omit-frame-pointer -fno-rtti -fno-exceptions -fno-strict-aliasing -std=gnu++20 -MMD -MF /wrkdirs/usr/ports/www/node24/work/node-v24.16.0/out/Release/.deps//wrkdirs/usr/ports/www/node24/work/node-v24.16.0/out/Release/obj.target/node_mksnapshot/tools/snapshot/node_mksnapshot.o.d.raw -isystem /usr/local/include -O2 -pipe -fstack-protector-strong -isystem /usr/local/include -fno-strict-aliasing -isystem /usr/local/include -c > ../test/embedding/embedtest.cc:138:12: error: no viable conversion from 'node::EmbedderSnapshotData::Pointer' (aka 'unique_ptr<const EmbedderSnapshotData, DeleteSnapshotData>') to 'bool' > 138 | assert(snapshot); > | ^~~~~~~~ > /usr/include/c++/v1/__memory/unique_ptr.h:276:64: note: explicit conversion function is not a candidate > 276 | _LIBCPP_HIDE_FROM_ABI _LIBCPP_CONSTEXPR_SINCE_CXX23 explicit operator bool() const _NOEXCEPT { > | ^ > ../test/embedding/embedtest.cc:216:14: error: no viable conversion from 'node::EmbedderSnapshotData::Pointer' (aka 'unique_ptr<const EmbedderSnapshotData, DeleteSnapshotData>') to 'bool' > 216 | assert(snapshot); > | ^~~~~~~~ > /usr/include/c++/v1/__memory/unique_ptr.h:276:64: note: explicit conversion function is not a candidate > 276 | _LIBCPP_HIDE_FROM_ABI _LIBCPP_CONSTEXPR_SINCE_CXX23 explicit operator bool() const _NOEXCEPT { > | ^ > 2 errors generated. > ``` > > Any clues? This is because converting a std::unique_ptr to bool requires an explicit conversion, i.e. "if (my_unique_ptr)" will work, but using it with assert() will not. At least, our assert() as defined in /usr/include/assert.h in -CURRENT, has this contorted definition: #if __cplusplus < 202002L /* * C++ modes prior to C++20 cannot simultaneously satisfy all three * desirable properties of the sanitiser: * * Approach No double-eval Lambda support Arity check * ----------------------------- -------------- -------------- ----------- * sizeof(cast(expression)) yes no yes * static_cast<bool>(expression) no yes no * (void)bool(expression) no yes no * * NOTE: C++20 introduced lambdas in unevaluated contexts; see P0315R4. * * Since no approach satisfies all three below C++20, the least harmful * choice is to forgo the check entirely rather than silently break one * of the remaining guarantees. * */ #define __assert_sanitize(...) ((void)0) #else #define __assert_sanitize(...) (void)sizeof(((bool(*)(bool))0)(__VA_ARGS__)) #endif /* __cplusplus < 202002L */ #else #define __assert_sanitize(...) (void)sizeof(((_Bool(*)(_Bool))0)(__VA_ARGS__)) #endif /* __cplusplus */ #define assert(...) (__assert_sanitize(__VA_ARGS__), \ (__VA_ARGS__) ? (void)0 : \ __assert(__func__, __FILE__, \ __LINE__, #__VA_ARGS__)) which clearly does not work as intended. I would probalby be simpler to to use "!!" to force an explicit boolean conversion. For now, the ports could be fixed by changing the asserts to "ptr != nulltr", or adding an explicit static_cast<bool>. Or we should probably fix our assert macro. -Dimitryhome | help
Want to link to this message? Use this
URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?DC8F701E-B485-442D-A2A7-CE787B2CF169>