Follow-up Comment #4, bug #47161 (group groff): At 2025-11-15T09:34:57-0500, Balint Reczey wrote: > Follow-up Comment #3, bug #47161 (group groff): > Yes, the Anonymous submitter sounds right. I don't work on this > anymore, but testing groff with ASAN would probably be a good idea.
I routinely (often several times a day) build groff with the following
options--many were suggested by Bjarni Ingi Gislason.
COMMON_FLAGS="-flto=auto
-fcf-protection
-fno-common
-fsanitize-undefined-trap-on-error
-fstack-protector-strong
-fstack-clash-protection
-ftrapv
-funsigned-char
-fvar-tracking-assignments
-Wall
-Wbuiltin-declaration-mismatch
-Wextra
-Werror
-Wformat=2
-Wformat-overflow
-Walloc-zero
-Wanalyzer-file-leak
-Werror=format-security
-Werror=return-type
-Wredundant-decls
-Wstringop-overflow=4
-Wshadow
-Wunused
-Wunused-parameter
-O0 -Og
-ggdb
-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2"
CFLAGS="$COMMON_FLAGS
-Wstrict-prototypes
-Wmissing-prototypes
-Wold-style-declaration
-Wold-style-definition
-std=c99"
CXXFLAGS="$COMMON_FLAGS
-fcheck-new
-std=c++98
-pedantic
-pedantic-errors"
I'll add `-fsanitize=address` to this and see what happens.
Regards,
Branden
_______________________________________________________
Reply to this item at:
<https://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?47161>
_______________________________________________
Message sent via Savannah
https://savannah.gnu.org/
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
