On 07/31/2014 11:09 AM, Jeff Law wrote: > On 07/30/14 16:29, Joseph S. Myers wrote: >> On Thu, 31 Jul 2014, Chen Gang wrote: >> >>> On 07/31/2014 06:12 AM, Joseph S. Myers wrote: >>>> On Thu, 24 Jul 2014, Chen Gang wrote: >>>> >>>>> strlen() will get string length excluding '\0', but strcpy() will >>>>> append >>>>> '\0' in the end, so need XNEWVEC additional byte, or cause memory over >>>>> flow. >>>> >>>> OK assuming it passed regression testing (with ChangeLog entry as >>>> usual, >>>> and you need to say what platform the patch was bootstrapped / >>>> regression >>>> tested on). >>>> >>> >>> Excuse me, I only find it by reading source code, not give a test (for >>> me, this kind of patch welcomes the related test, but not mandatory). >> >> I don't believe this particular patch needs a new regression test >> added to >> the testsuite. >> >> But you still need to meet all the usual patch requirements - run the GCC >> testsuite before and after the patch, and verify that it does not >> introduce any new failures, and say what platform you did that testing >> on. >> Even "obvious" patches can have non-obvious typos, hence the need to run >> the testsuite as a sanity check. > I was going to take care of this for Chen, but keep getting pulled into > other things.
OK, thank all of you for spending your time resources on it. This kind of patch is non-urgent, so can only check it when related members have time, and I shall have a little patient (at least, can wait 2 weeks or more). Again next, I shall try to finish testsuite within this week end (2014-08-03). Thanks. -- Chen Gang Open, share, and attitude like air, water, and life which God blessed
