https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81117
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81117
--- Comment #22 from Bernd Edlinger ---
(In reply to Martin Sebor from comment #21)
> I believe the bug you are pointing out was reported in
> https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22442 and fixed in Glibc
> 2.27. Please see the discus
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81117
--- Comment #21 from Martin Sebor ---
I believe the bug you are pointing out was reported in
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22442 and fixed in Glibc 2.27.
Please see the discussion at
https://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2017-11
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81117
Bernd Edlinger changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bernd.edlinger at hotmail dot
de
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81117
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81117
Christophe Lyon changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||clyon at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81117
--- Comment #17 from Daniel Fruzynski ---
(In reply to Martin Sebor from comment #14)
> (In reply to Dmitry G. Dyachenko from comment #12)
>
> I'm afraid the warning in the constant string case is unavoidable. The call
> is folded at a point wh
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81117
--- Comment #16 from Dmitry G. Dyachenko ---
(In reply to Martin Sebor from comment #15)
Thank you. Nice warnings!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81117
--- Comment #15 from Martin Sebor ---
(In reply to Dmitry G. Dyachenko from comment #12)
LTO doesn't interact with these warnings very well. pr71907 and pr79062 track
a couple of the problems I know about. If you find a different issue please
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81117
--- Comment #14 from Martin Sebor ---
(In reply to Dmitry G. Dyachenko from comment #12)
I'm afraid the warning in the constant string case is unavoidable. The call is
folded at a point where the checker doesn't have access to the subsequent
st
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81117
--- Comment #13 from Dmitry G. Dyachenko ---
Sounds like -Wno-stringop-overflow does not propagate into LTO build.
I'll try make a small testcase
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81117
--- Comment #12 from Dmitry G. Dyachenko ---
char *strncpy(char *dest, const char *src, size_t n);
void foo(char* p)
{
strncpy(p, "1", 1);
p[1] = 0;
}
with gcc8/r254663 is this expected?
$ gcc -c -Wall x.c
x.c: In function ‘foo’:
x.c:4:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81117
--- Comment #11 from Martin Sebor ---
Author: msebor
Date: Sat Nov 11 18:04:21 2017
New Revision: 254659
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=254659&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc/ChangeLog:
PR c/81117
* doc/extend.texi (attribute n
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81117
--- Comment #10 from Martin Sebor ---
Author: msebor
Date: Fri Nov 10 22:48:43 2017
New Revision: 254641
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=254641&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc/ChangeLog:
PR c/81117
* config/darwin-c.c (framewor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81117
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
See Also|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81117
--- Comment #8 from Martin Sebor ---
Author: msebor
Date: Fri Nov 10 16:35:26 2017
New Revision: 254630
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=254630&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c/81117 - Improve buffer overflow checking in strncpy
gcc/ChangeLog:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81117
--- Comment #7 from Aldy Hernandez ---
Author: aldyh
Date: Wed Sep 13 16:58:44 2017
New Revision: 252431
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=252431&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c/81117 - Improve buffer overflow checking in strncpy - part 2
gcc/Ch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81117
--- Comment #6 from Aldy Hernandez ---
Author: aldyh
Date: Wed Sep 13 16:58:30 2017
New Revision: 252430
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=252430&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c/81117 - Improve buffer overflow checking in strncpy - part 1
gcc/Ch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81117
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81117
--- Comment #6 from Martin Sebor ---
Author: msebor
Date: Mon Aug 14 20:21:44 2017
New Revision: 251100
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=251100&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c/81117 - Improve buffer overflow checking in strncpy - part 2
gcc/Cha
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81117
--- Comment #5 from Martin Sebor ---
Author: msebor
Date: Mon Aug 14 18:35:13 2017
New Revision: 251098
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=251098&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c/81117 - Improve buffer overflow checking in strncpy - part 1
gcc/Cha
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81117
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
--- Comment #4 from Martin Sebor -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81117
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81117
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81117
--- Comment #1 from Daniel Fruzynski ---
In this case this code will lead to buffer overflows, but in general case it
often may work fine. However this is still error in code, and it would be good
if gcc could detect and report it.
25 matches
Mail list logo
