On 06/05/2018 04:19 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Tue, Jun 05, 2018 at 03:43:17PM -0600, Martin Sebor wrote:
--- a/gcc/builtins.def
+++ b/gcc/builtins.def
@@ -733,6 +733,7 @@ DEF_EXT_LIB_BUILTIN (BUILT_IN_STRNCASECMP,
"strncasecmp", BT_FN_INT_CONST_STR
DEF_LIB_BUILTIN (BUILT_IN_STRNCAT, "strncat",
BT_FN_STRING_STRING_CONST_STRING_SIZE, ATTR_RET1_NOTHROW_NONNULL_LEAF)
DEF_LIB_BUILTIN (BUILT_IN_STRNCMP, "strncmp",
BT_FN_INT_CONST_STRING_CONST_STRING_SIZE, ATTR_PURE_NOTHROW_NONNULL_LEAF)
DEF_LIB_BUILTIN (BUILT_IN_STRNCPY, "strncpy",
BT_FN_STRING_STRING_CONST_STRING_SIZE, ATTR_RET1_NOTHROW_NONNULL_LEAF)
+DEF_LIB_BUILTIN_CHKP (BUILT_IN_STRNLEN, "strnlen",
BT_FN_SIZE_CONST_STRING_SIZE, ATTR_PURE_NOTHROW_NONNULL_LEAF)
strnlen isn't a C89, C99 nor C11 function, so I think it should be
DEF_EXT_LIB_BUILTIN like e.g. stpcpy, not DEF_LIB_BUILTIN.
Thanks. Let me change that.
And not really sure it is worth adding the CHKP stuff when it will be just
more work for Martin Liska to remove it again.
Sure, let me take that out.
Is there anything else?
Martin
