On Wed, Jun 06, 2018 at 09:14:11AM -0600, Martin Sebor wrote:
> 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?
This wasn't a review, I just wanted to point out these two things.
Jakub
