Hi,
On 1/10/21 3:56 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
Sure. I was confirming that based on the GCC dump there is no risk
of an overflow in the translation unit, and so there is no warning.
OK. :) I didn't understand the GCC dump. Despite having commit privs,
I'm not actually a compiler guru.
It can
Hi Martin,
On 1/10/21 11:01 AM, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 1/8/21 12:38 PM, Bruce Korb via Gcc wrote:
This is the code that must be confusing to GCC. "def_str" points to
the second character in the 520 byte buffer. "def_scan" points to a
character that we already know we'
Hi,
You are supposed to be able to post once you've subscribed.
Also, GCC's code analysis is wrong. "name_bf" contains *NO MORE* than
MAXNAMELEN characters. That is provable.
"def_str" points into a buffer of size ((MAXNAMELEN * 2) + 8) and at an
offset maximum of MAXNAMELEN+1 (also provable
On Tue, Sep 8, 2020 at 7:36 AM Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > The fall through comment was polluted with a colon that I hadn't noticed,
> > as in:
> >
> > /* FALLTHROUGH: */
> >
> > and your fall through regex doesn't allow for that.
> > I'd add a colon to the space, tab and '!' that the regex acce
On Tue, Sep 8, 2020 at 2:33 AM Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> > Nope. I had /* FALLTHROUGH */ on the line before a blank line before
> > the case label. After Googling, I found an explicit reference that you
> > had to spell it: // fall through
> > I did that, and it worked. So I'm moving on, but still
On Mon, Sep 7, 2020 at 3:45 PM Florian Weimer wrote:
>
> * Bruce Korb via Gcc:
>
> > I don't write a lot of code anymore, but this sure seems like a
> > gratuitous irritation to me. I've been using
> >
> > // FALLTHRU and
> > //
I don't write a lot of code anymore, but this sure seems like a
gratuitous irritation to me. I've been using
// FALLTHRU and
// FALLTHROUGH
for *DECADES*, so it's pretty incomprehensible why the compiler should
have to invalidate my code because it thinks a different coding
comment is bet
