On 06/23/2011 03:02 AM, Jim Meyering wrote:
> but that would require a different diagnostic, since there
> is no "array" involved, so it may be better to leave that for
> a separate stack-size-related test.
-Wframe-larger-than=4096 might be a useful entry to add to the
manywarnings module.
--
Er
On 06/23/2011 03:02 AM, Jim Meyering wrote:
> Eric Blake wrote:
>> POSIX allows PATH_MAX to be undefined. And even if you use the
>> gnulib pathmax module, where "pathmax.h" guarantees a definition,
>> the definition might not be constant or might be so large as to
>> be wasteful or cause stack ov
On 06/23/2011 06:34 AM, Jim Meyering wrote:
>> +# not be constant, or might overflow a stack. In general, use PATH_MAX as
>> +# a limit, not an array or alloca size.
>> +sc_prohibit_path_max_allocation:
>> +@prohibit='(\balloca *\([^)]*|\[[^]]*)PATH_MAX' \
>> +halt='Avoid a
Eric Blake wrote:
> On 06/23/2011 03:02 AM, Jim Meyering wrote:
>> Eric Blake wrote:
>>> POSIX allows PATH_MAX to be undefined. And even if you use the
>>> gnulib pathmax module, where "pathmax.h" guarantees a definition,
>>> the definition might not be constant or might be so large as to
>>> be w
Eric Blake wrote:
> POSIX allows PATH_MAX to be undefined. And even if you use the
> gnulib pathmax module, where "pathmax.h" guarantees a definition,
> the definition might not be constant or might be so large as to
> be wasteful or cause stack overflows. PATH_MAX should only be
> used as a limi
On 06/22/2011 04:21 PM, Paul Eggert wrote:
> On 06/22/11 14:53, Eric Blake wrote:
>> That's where the joy of per-file exceptions is handy
>
> Fine, but if I look at (say) Emacs, all six instances
> of "[PATH_MAX" are fine. This particular syntax check
> may be more trouble than it's worth.
It's
On 06/22/11 14:53, Eric Blake wrote:
> That's where the joy of per-file exceptions is handy
Fine, but if I look at (say) Emacs, all six instances
of "[PATH_MAX" are fine. This particular syntax check
may be more trouble than it's worth.
On 06/22/2011 03:49 PM, Paul Eggert wrote:
> On 06/22/11 14:10, Eric Blake wrote:
>> +@prohibit='\[PATH''_MAX'
>
> Doesn't this go too far? For example, gnulib's lib/stat.c does this:
>
> /* Due to mingw's oddities, ...
> Fortunately, mingw PATH_MAX is small enough for stack
>
On 06/22/11 14:10, Eric Blake wrote:
> + @prohibit='\[PATH''_MAX'
Doesn't this go too far? For example, gnulib's lib/stat.c does this:
/* Due to mingw's oddities, ...
Fortunately, mingw PATH_MAX is small enough for stack
allocation. */
char fixed_name[PATH_MAX
POSIX allows PATH_MAX to be undefined. And even if you use the
gnulib pathmax module, where "pathmax.h" guarantees a definition,
the definition might not be constant or might be so large as to
be wasteful or cause stack overflows. PATH_MAX should only be
used as a limit or hueristic, not an array
10 matches
Mail list logo
