On Tue, Nov 15, 2022 at 15:09:19 -0800, Paul Eggert wrote:
> This may be a hack, but it's a *good* hack. It's likely to fix
> real-world bugs that would be caused if Clang becomes overly pedantic by
> default here. And the probability of introducing real-world bugs is
> essentially zero.
FWIW,
On Tue, 15 Nov 2022, Sam James wrote:
On 13 Nov 2022, at 00:43, Paul Eggert wrote:
On 2022-11-11 07:11, Aaron Ballman wrote:
We believe the runtime behavior is sufficiently dangerous to
warrant a conservative view that any call to a function will be a call
that gets executed at runtime,
Can you cite any examples of a real-world security flaw what would be
found by Clang erroring out because 'char foo(void);' is the wrong
prototype? Is it plausible that any such security flaw exists?
CVE-2006-1174 is a possibly reasonable example.
CVE-2006-1174 is not an example, because no
On Tue, Nov 15, 2022 at 3:27 PM Paul Eggert wrote:
>
> On 2022-11-15 11:27, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> > Another perspective is that autoconf shouldn't get in the way of
> > making the C and C++ toolchain more secure by default.
>
> Can you cite any examples of a real-world security flaw what would
On Tue, Nov 15, 2022 at 2:08 PM Paul Eggert wrote:
>
> On 2022-11-15 06:50, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> > Could you clarify what you mean, with a concrete example? Surely as
> > long as errors are reported on stderr and the compiler exits with
> > non-zero status, that's an acceptable way to report
On 2022-11-15 11:27, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
Another perspective is that autoconf shouldn't get in the way of
making the C and C++ toolchain more secure by default.
Can you cite any examples of a real-world security flaw what would be
found by Clang erroring out because 'char foo(void);' is
On Tue, Nov 15, 2022, at 2:02 PM, Nick Bowler wrote:
> But neither suggestion makes any difference. Timestamps seem OK; it
> appears that make is deciding to aclocal.m4 (and then configure) because
> of prerequisites that do not exist outright:
>
> % make -d
> [...]
>Considering
On Tue, 15 Nov 2022 at 19:08, Paul Eggert wrote:
>
> On 2022-11-15 06:50, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> > Could you clarify what you mean, with a concrete example? Surely as
> > long as errors are reported on stderr and the compiler exits with
> > non-zero status, that's an acceptable way to report
On 2022-11-15 06:50, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
Could you clarify what you mean, with a concrete example? Surely as
long as errors are reported on stderr and the compiler exits with
non-zero status, that's an acceptable way to report errors?
Not if the "error" is harmless as far as Autoconf is
On 2022-11-15, Zack Weinberg wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 15, 2022, at 12:49 PM, Nick Bowler wrote:
>> On 2022-11-13, Zack Weinberg wrote:
>>> I have not pushed this, and have only tested it lightly on a current
>>> Linux.
>>> It needs testing on weird old systems, particularly old AIX, HP-UX,
>>>
On Tue, Nov 15, 2022, at 12:49 PM, Nick Bowler wrote:
> On 2022-11-13, Zack Weinberg wrote:
>> I have not pushed this, and have only tested it lightly on a current Linux.
>> It needs testing on weird old systems, particularly old AIX, HP-UX, MinGW.
>
> I'd be happy to give it a go on my weird old
[dropping non-autoconf lists from Cc]
On 2022-11-13, Zack Weinberg wrote:
> I have not pushed this, and have only tested it lightly on a current Linux.
> It needs testing on weird old systems, particularly old AIX, HP-UX, MinGW.
I'd be happy to give it a go on my weird old systems ...
>
> I
On Mon, 14 Nov 2022 at 18:15, Paul Eggert wrote:
>
> On 2022-11-14 04:41, Aaron Ballman wrote:
> > it's generally a problem when autoconf relies on invalid
> > language constructs
>
> Autoconf *must* rely on invalid language constructs, if only to test
> whether the language constructs work. And
> On 13 Nov 2022, at 05:11, Zack Weinberg wrote:
>
> On Sat, Nov 12, 2022, at 4:33 PM, Zack Weinberg wrote:
>> On Sat, Nov 12, 2022, at 4:31 PM, Paul Eggert wrote:
>>> Because of the concerns raised in this thread it's become clear that
>>> what's in Autoconf now is too drastic, and I've
> On 15 Nov 2022, at 13:30, Zack Weinberg wrote:
>
> On Tue, Nov 15, 2022, at 12:03 AM, Sam James wrote:
>>> On 13 Nov 2022, at 00:43, Paul Eggert wrote:
>>>
>>> Although there will be problems with people who run "./configure
>>> CFLAGS='-Werror'", that sort of usage has always been
On Tue, Nov 15, 2022, at 12:03 AM, Sam James wrote:
>> On 13 Nov 2022, at 00:43, Paul Eggert wrote:
>>
>> Although there will be problems with people who run "./configure
>> CFLAGS='-Werror'", that sort of usage has always been problematic and
>> unsupported by Autoconf, so we can simply
Morning,
Florian Weimer writes:
> Uhm, this seems to be something affecting 64-bit targets, not 32-bit
> targets, after the POSIX fix went in? We have a few more such quirks.
> (I understood the question to be about cleanup opportunities for 32-bit
> architectures.)
Hmm, yes, not sure what he
17 matches
Mail list logo
