Hi Siddhesh, On 2/17/23 22:39, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote: > On 2023-02-17 16:20, Alejandro Colomar wrote: >> Link: >> <https://inbox.sourceware.org/gcc/3098fd18-9dbf-b4e9-bae5-62ec6fea7...@opteya.com/T/> >> Link: >> <https://github.com/shadow-maint/shadow/pull/649#discussion_r1108350066> >> Cc: Andreas Schwab <sch...@linux-m68k.org> >> Cc: David Malcolm <dmalc...@redhat.com> >> Cc: Florian Weimer <fwei...@redhat.com> >> Cc: Iker Pedrosa <ipedr...@redhat.com> >> Cc: Jens Gustedt <jens.gust...@inria.fr> >> Cc: Jonathan Wakely <jwakely....@gmail.com> >> Cc: Mark Wielaard <m...@klomp.org> >> Cc: Martin Uecker <uec...@tugraz.at> >> Cc: Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpa...@gmail.com> >> Cc: Paul Eggert <egg...@cs.ucla.edu> >> Cc: Sam James <s...@gentoo.org> >> Cc: Siddhesh Poyarekar <siddh...@gotplt.org> >> Cc: Yann Droneaud <ydrone...@opteya.com> >> Signed-off-by: Alejandro Colomar <a...@kernel.org> >> --- >> >> Hi Siddhesh, >> >> Here's a patch for it. It is untested yet. Please have a look at it. >> I'm not used to GCC customs, so corrections are welcome :) >> >> Cheers, >> >> Alex > > You've got the customs right as far as submission is concerned; gcc > accepts patches under DCO. I'm not a maintainer though, so I can't > approve the change, I can only comment on it in the hope of influencing > maintainers' opinions.
:) > In any case it's probably suitable as a proposal > for gcc 14, given that 13 is in stage 4, regression fixes only. Sure, 14 is good. > > I'm split about where -Wuse-after-free=3 should be enabled. On the one > hand, I'd like it to go into -Wall and alongside _FORTIFY_SOURCE=3, > given that the latter already breaks the incorrect provenance > assumptions in such code patterns. However on the other hand, it may > lead to annoyed developers, even though the usage is, strictly speaking, > UB. I don't know about the false positive rate of -Wuse-after-free=3 > either (specifically in the context of UB-ness of the code it warns > about), maybe someone else may be able to chime in on that. > > Maybe a good compromise here is -Wextra, but if there's consensus > developing towards adding it to -Wall, I'll happily jump to that side. Since -Wall already had -Wuaf=2, and to not overcomplicate it, I put it in -Wall too. Anyway, I don't expect it to have many false positives, but maybe someone else can chime in. Both are fine, IMO. I use -Wall -Wextra always together, so I wouldn't even notice :) > > Thanks, > Sid On 2/17/23 22:41, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote: > On 2023-02-17 16:39, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote: >> You've got the customs right as far as submission is concerned; gcc > > Oh, one correction: patches typically go to gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu > dot org. Okay, I'll take that note for next time. For this one, should I resend, or is it okay as is? Both are fine for me. Cheers, Alex -- <http://www.alejandro-colomar.es/> GPG key fingerprint: A9348594CE31283A826FBDD8D57633D441E25BB5
OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
