On 2016.12.20 at 01:30 -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote: > I'd strongly prefer a non-data-dependent solution, specifically adding > at the top of sort_relocs(): > > if (!r->count) > return; > > However, by my reading of the C and POSIX standards, this is a gcc > error: qsort() should do nothing if the count is zero.
No, it is invoking undefined behavior. Notice the nonnull attribute in /usr/include/stdlib.h: 739 /* Sort NMEMB elements of BASE, of SIZE bytes each, 740 using COMPAR to perform the comparisons. */ 741 extern void qsort (void *__base, size_t __nmemb, size_t __size, 742 __compar_fn_t __compar) __nonnull ((1, 4)); But feel free to revert my patch and add your solution. -- Markus
