https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67535
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Vittorio Zecca from comment #0)
> During "make check" a null pointer is sometimes passed to memcpy in
> write.c:1877
>
> memcpy (ext_name, base_name, base_name_len);
>
> because base_name == NULL
>
> but base_name_len == 0 so it should be harmless.
> To make happy the sanitizer the statement should be
>
> if(base_name_len) memcpy (ext_name, base_name, base_name_len);
What happens to performance? Simply making changes to
make sanitizer happy seems rather questionable. It's clear
from context that if base_name == NULL, then base_name_len
== 0, and the memcpy should be a NOP.
