On Tue, 2017-01-17 at 08:30 -0600, Peter Bergner wrote:
> On 1/16/17 3:09 PM, Aaron Sawdey wrote:
> > Here is an updated version of this patch.
> >
> > Tulio noted that glibc's strncmp test was failing. This turned out
> > to
> > be the use of signed HOST_WIDE_INT for handling strncmp length. The
On 1/16/17 3:09 PM, Aaron Sawdey wrote:
Here is an updated version of this patch.
Tulio noted that glibc's strncmp test was failing. This turned out to
be the use of signed HOST_WIDE_INT for handling strncmp length. The
glibc test calls strncmp with length 2^64-1, presumably to provoke
exactly t
On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 03:09:35PM -0600, Aaron Sawdey wrote:
> Tulio noted that glibc's strncmp test was failing. This turned out to
> be the use of signed HOST_WIDE_INT for handling strncmp length. The
> glibc test calls strncmp with length 2^64-1, presumably to provoke
> exactly this type of bug
Here is an updated version of this patch.
Tulio noted that glibc's strncmp test was failing. This turned out to
be the use of signed HOST_WIDE_INT for handling strncmp length. The
glibc test calls strncmp with length 2^64-1, presumably to provoke
exactly this type of bug. Fixing the issue require
