On 11/14/22 18:21, Xi Ruoyao wrote:
> Hi Martin,
>
Hello.
> Is it allowed to merge libsanitizer from LLVM in stage 3? If not I'd
> like to cherry pick some commits from LLVM [to fix some stupid errors
> I've made in LoongArch libasan :(].
I'm sorry but I was really busy with the porting of the
On 11/14/22 14:06, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Nov 2022, Martin Liška wrote:
>> The situation with the Sphinx migration went out of control. The TODO
>> list overwhelmed me and there are road-blocks that can't be easily fixed
>> with what Sphinx currently supports.
>
> This migration was/
On Tue, Nov 15, 2022 at 11:02:53AM +0100, Martin Liška wrote:
> > Is it allowed to merge libsanitizer from LLVM in stage 3? If not I'd
> > like to cherry pick some commits from LLVM [to fix some stupid errors
> > I've made in LoongArch libasan :(].
>
> I'm sorry but I was really busy with the por
On 11/15/22 11:07, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 15, 2022 at 11:02:53AM +0100, Martin Liška wrote:
>>> Is it allowed to merge libsanitizer from LLVM in stage 3? If not I'd
>>> like to cherry pick some commits from LLVM [to fix some stupid errors
>>> I've made in LoongArch libasan :(].
>>
>> I
On Tue, Nov 15, 2022 at 01:49:36PM +0100, Martin Liška wrote:
> On 11/15/22 11:07, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 15, 2022 at 11:02:53AM +0100, Martin Liška wrote:
> >>> Is it allowed to merge libsanitizer from LLVM in stage 3? If not I'd
> >>> like to cherry pick some commits from LLVM [to
On Tue, Nov 15, 2022, at 12:03 AM, Sam James wrote:
>> On 13 Nov 2022, at 00:43, Paul Eggert wrote:
>>
>> Although there will be problems with people who run "./configure
>> CFLAGS='-Werror'", that sort of usage has always been problematic and
>> unsupported by Autoconf, so we can simply contin
> On 15 Nov 2022, at 13:30, Zack Weinberg wrote:
>
> On Tue, Nov 15, 2022, at 12:03 AM, Sam James wrote:
>>> On 13 Nov 2022, at 00:43, Paul Eggert wrote:
>>>
>>> Although there will be problems with people who run "./configure
>>> CFLAGS='-Werror'", that sort of usage has always been problem
On Mon, 14 Nov 2022 at 18:15, Paul Eggert wrote:
>
> On 2022-11-14 04:41, Aaron Ballman wrote:
> > it's generally a problem when autoconf relies on invalid
> > language constructs
>
> Autoconf *must* rely on invalid language constructs, if only to test
> whether the language constructs work. And C
Hi.
I've just pushed libsanitizer update that was tested on x86_64-linux and
ppc64le-linux systems.
Moreover, I run bootstrap on x86_64-linux and checked ABI difference with
abidiff.
Pushed as r13-4068-g3037f11fb86eda.
Cheers,
Martin
I am wonder if this will be good choice to allow gcc to generate AI data about
best optimization approach on user computer.
Yes. GCC team will provide source code for some examples and (once low
hardware consumption) made gcc to compile these sources with various
optimization patch. It will tak
Dnia wtorek, 15 listopada 2022 19:42:13 CET Sławomir Lach pisze:
> I am wonder if this will be good choice to allow gcc to generate AI data
> about best optimization approach on user computer.
>
> Yes. GCC team will provide source code for some examples and (once low
> hardware consumption) made g
[Fixing typo in the Subject ("git" -> "jit" ); CCing jit mailing list]
On Fri, 2022-11-11 at 17:16 +, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On Mon, 7 Nov 2022 at 13:51, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 7 Nov 2022 at 13:33, LIU Hao wrote:
> > >
> > > 在 2022-11-07 20:57, Jonathan Wakely 写道:
> > > > I
On Tue, 15 Nov 2022 at 18:50, David Malcolm wrote:
>
> [Fixing typo in the Subject ("git" -> "jit" ); CCing jit mailing list]
>
> On Fri, 2022-11-11 at 17:16 +, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> > On Mon, 7 Nov 2022 at 13:51, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, 7 Nov 2022 at 13:33, LIU Hao wrote
On 2022-11-15 06:50, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
Could you clarify what you mean, with a concrete example? Surely as
long as errors are reported on stderr and the compiler exits with
non-zero status, that's an acceptable way to report errors?
Not if the "error" is harmless as far as Autoconf is conc
On Tue, 15 Nov 2022 at 19:08, Paul Eggert wrote:
>
> On 2022-11-15 06:50, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> > Could you clarify what you mean, with a concrete example? Surely as
> > long as errors are reported on stderr and the compiler exits with
> > non-zero status, that's an acceptable way to report err
On 2022-11-15 11:27, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
Another perspective is that autoconf shouldn't get in the way of
making the C and C++ toolchain more secure by default.
Can you cite any examples of a real-world security flaw what would be
found by Clang erroring out because 'char foo(void);' is the
On Tue, Nov 15, 2022 at 2:08 PM Paul Eggert wrote:
>
> On 2022-11-15 06:50, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> > Could you clarify what you mean, with a concrete example? Surely as
> > long as errors are reported on stderr and the compiler exits with
> > non-zero status, that's an acceptable way to report e
On Tue, Nov 15, 2022 at 3:27 PM Paul Eggert wrote:
>
> On 2022-11-15 11:27, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> > Another perspective is that autoconf shouldn't get in the way of
> > making the C and C++ toolchain more secure by default.
>
> Can you cite any examples of a real-world security flaw what would
This Friday, 18 November, at 16:00 UTC (11:00am Eastern, 17:00 Central
European Time) the FSF will host a session on their BBB server about
the current sourceware infrastructure and future plans.
https://www.fsf.org/events/sourceware-infrastructure-a-presentation-and-community-q-a
https://inbox.so
Can you cite any examples of a real-world security flaw what would be
found by Clang erroring out because 'char foo(void);' is the wrong
prototype? Is it plausible that any such security flaw exists?
CVE-2006-1174 is a possibly reasonable example.
CVE-2006-1174 is not an example, because no p
On Tue, Nov 15, 2022 at 15:09:19 -0800, Paul Eggert wrote:
> This may be a hack, but it's a *good* hack. It's likely to fix
> real-world bugs that would be caused if Clang becomes overly pedantic by
> default here. And the probability of introducing real-world bugs is
> essentially zero.
FWIW,
On 11/8/22 16:10, Ben Boeckel wrote:
This simplifies the interface for other UTF-8 validity detections when a
simple "yes" or "no" answer is sufficient.
libcpp/
* charset.cc: Add `_cpp_valid_utf8_str` which determines whether
a C string is valid UTF-8 or not.
* internal.
On 11/8/22 16:10, Ben Boeckel wrote:
Unicode does not support such values because they are unrepresentable in
UTF-16.
libcpp/
* charset.cc: Reject encodings of codepoints above 0x10.
UTF-16 does not support such codepoints and therefore all
Unicode rejects such value
On Tue, 15 Nov 2022, Sam James wrote:
On 13 Nov 2022, at 00:43, Paul Eggert wrote:
On 2022-11-11 07:11, Aaron Ballman wrote:
We believe the runtime behavior is sufficiently dangerous to
warrant a conservative view that any call to a function will be a call
that gets executed at runtime, he
24 matches
Mail list logo
