On 30/06/2025 01:25, Paul Eggert wrote:
On 2025-06-29 12:59, Pádraig Brady wrote:
I've manually suppressed that error instance in our coverity instance.
Maybe the change I just installed removed the need for that manual
suppression?
Indeed it does.
I checked with ./configure utils_cv_ieee_16
As sometimes happens (in my case, while walking the dog) I thought of
one or two more little problems in that area, and installed the attached
patches to fix them. The first patch merely refactors; the second one
does the fix; the third one adds test cases.From 617220e970f267fbeea80d5cd8b62aec2b
On 2025-06-29 12:59, Pádraig Brady wrote:
I've manually suppressed that error instance in our coverity instance.
Maybe the change I just installed removed the need for that manual
suppression?
On 2025-06-29 05:17, Pádraig Brady wrote:
If we want the compiler to just apply Dead Code Elimination here,
then it may be best to push/pop ignoring that warning ?
Or, since GCC didn't complain about similar code elsewhere, we can
change the complained-about code to look more like the code els
On 29/06/2025 13:17, Pádraig Brady wrote:
On 29/06/2025 05:25, Paul Eggert wrote:
> od: omit some duplicate code
> On x86-64 (for example) print_long, print_long_long, and
> print_intmax all behave identically, so give GCC enough info so
> that it generates code for just one of these fun
On Sun, Jun 29, 2025 at 5:18 AM Pádraig Brady wrote:
> On 29/06/2025 05:25, Paul Eggert wrote:
>
> > od: omit some duplicate code
> > On x86-64 (for example) print_long, print_long_long, and
> > print_intmax all behave identically, so give GCC enough info so
> > that it generates code for just
On Sat, Jun 28, 2025 at 9:25 PM Paul Eggert wrote:
> On 2025-06-24 18:31, Jim Meyering wrote:
> > That goes way back. I think od.c
> > was the second stand-alone program I contributed to coreutils (first
> > was tr). The earliest email I still have that mentions it is from
> > 1997-01 prior to tex
On 29/06/2025 05:25, Paul Eggert wrote:
> od: omit some duplicate code
> On x86-64 (for example) print_long, print_long_long, and
> print_intmax all behave identically, so give GCC enough info so
> that it generates code for just one of these functions.
> * src/od.c (enum size_spec): Arrange for
Hi Paul,
Paul Eggert writes:
> * src/od.c (width_bytes, decode_one_format): Don’t assume a signed
> type has the same size as the corresponding unsigned type.
> This has no effect on practical platforms; it’s just for
> consistency there.
> ---
> src/od.c | 18 +-
> 1 file chang
On 2025-06-24 18:31, Jim Meyering wrote:
That goes way back. I think od.c
was the second stand-alone program I contributed to coreutils (first
was tr). The earliest email I still have that mentions it is from
1997-01 prior to textutils-1.22, but that was just a ChangeLog entry
about adapting to a
Hi Grisha,
Grisha Levit writes:
>> Grisha, what did you pass to ./configure?
>>
>> I'm suprised we don't disable this in Gnulib. Since there we do:
>>
>> static_assert (1 < sizeof (example))
>>
>> Without a second argument message string, I would expect Clang to
>> complain about it, unless
On Tue, Jun 24, 2025, 12:34 Collin Funk wrote:
>
> Pádraig Brady writes:
>
> > On 24/06/2025 15:27, Grisha Levit wrote:
> >
> >> This part:
> >>
> >>> tryline:
> >>> + idx_t i = 0;
> >>> + int c = 1; /* Init to 1 so can distinguish if NUL read. */
> >> triggers
> >> w
Pádraig Brady writes:
> On 24/06/2025 15:27, Grisha Levit wrote:
>
>> This part:
>>
>>> tryline:
>>> + idx_t i = 0;
>>> + int c = 1; /* Init to 1 so can distinguish if NUL read. */
>> triggers
>> warning: label followed by a declaration is a C23 extension
>> [-Wc23-e
On Tue, Jun 24, 2025 at 8:29 AM Pádraig Brady wrote:
> OK version 3 attached which simplifies
> by removing the label and gotos entirely.
Thanks for fixing my very old bugs! That goes way back. I think od.c
was the second stand-alone program I contributed to coreutils (first
was tr). The earliest
On 24/06/2025 15:27, Grisha Levit wrote:
This part:
tryline:
+ idx_t i = 0;
+ int c = 1; /* Init to 1 so can distinguish if NUL read. */
triggers
warning: label followed by a declaration is a C23 extension
[-Wc23-extensions]
OK version 3 attached which simplif
On Tue, Jun 24, 2025, 10:04 Pádraig Brady wrote:
>
> On 24/06/2025 01:16, Pádraig Brady wrote:
> > On 23/06/2025 09:24, Jaehoon Jang wrote:
> >> =
> >> ==1151699==ERROR: AddressSanitizer: heap-buffer-overflow on address
> >> 0x615
On 24/06/2025 01:16, Pádraig Brady wrote:
On 23/06/2025 09:24, Jaehoon Jang wrote:
=
==1151699==ERROR: AddressSanitizer: heap-buffer-overflow on address
0x615004f9 at pc 0x004d153f bp 0x7fff937f0410 sp 0x7fff937f0408
WRITE o
On 23/06/2025 09:24, Jaehoon Jang wrote:
=
==1151699==ERROR: AddressSanitizer: heap-buffer-overflow on address
0x615004f9 at pc 0x004d153f bp 0x7fff937f0410 sp 0x7fff937f0408
WRITE of size 1 at 0x615004f9 thread T0
#
18 matches
Mail list logo
