Follow-up Comment #3, bug #57277 (project findutils):
[comment #1 comment #1:]
> First of all, the fix for this should go into gnulib --> adding their ML.
>
> Then, this test actually wants to verify the behavior of that
> function when called with a NULL value (it should return NULL
> and set errno to EINVAL).
> Therefore, the test needs to suppress that specific sanitizer
> error.
No, it's not a sanitizer error, it's an error in gnulib code. One can't
decorate a function with nonnull attribute and then call the function
with NULL. Doing that, an optimizing compiler can do aggressive
optimizations.
So either the function canonicalize_file_name should accept (and handle
NULL),
then remove the nonnull attribute, or it can't and then one can't call
the function with NULL.
Thanks.
I don't have a GCC 10, so does something like the
> following work?
>
>
> a/tests/test-canonicalize-lgpl.c b/tests/test-canonicalize-lgpl.c
> index 4ce06e46c..4e7d47c57 100644
> --- a/tests/test-canonicalize-lgpl.c
> +++ b/tests/test-canonicalize-lgpl.c
> @@ -39,6 +39,9 @@ SIGNATURE_CHECK (canonicalize_file_name, char *, (const
char *));
>
> #define BASE "t-can-lgpl.tmp"
>
> +/* Suppress -fsanitize=null error - seen on GCC 10 - for this test. */
> +extern char *canonicalize_file_name (const char *)
__attribute__((no_sanitize("null")));
> +
> int
> main (void)
> {
>
_______________________________________________________
Reply to this item at:
<https://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?57277>
_______________________________________________
Message sent via Savannah
https://savannah.gnu.org/
