чт, 23 янв. 2020 г. в 23:17, Willy Tarreau <[email protected]>:
> On Thu, Jan 23, 2020 at 10:59:00PM +0500, ???? ??????? wrote:
> > > Could you please try to use (size_t) instead of (unsigned int) ? If
> it's
> > > enough to shut it up, I'm fine with doing that change. Otherwise we'll
> > > probably get rid of that stupid warning.
> > >
> >
> > CC src/server.o
> > CC src/cfgparse.o
> > src/cfgparse.c: In function 'check_config_validity':
> > src/cfgparse.c:3642:33: warning: argument 1 range [2147483648,
> 4294967295]
> > exceeds maximum object size 2147483647 [-Walloc-size-larger-than=]
> > newsrv->idle_orphan_conns = calloc((size_t)global.nbthread,
> > sizeof(*newsrv->idle_orphan_conns));
> >
> > ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > In file included from src/cfgparse.c:24:
> > /usr/arm-linux-gnueabihf/include/stdlib.h:541:14: note: in a call to
> > allocation function 'calloc' declared here
> > extern void *calloc (size_t __nmemb, size_t __size)
> > ^~~~~~
> > CC src/checks.o
> > ^CMakefile:846: recipe for target 'src/checks.o' failed
> > make: *** [src/checks.o] Interrupt
>
> Thanks for the test! So basically this clearly proves we respect the
> calling convention but the compiler still complains. OK I'm seeing in
> the mad that it's for functions "decorated" with the "alloc_size"
> attribute. Thus in short they enforce constraints that cannot be
> expressed with available types. This is becoming totally ridiculous.
>
> We're getting a huge collection of stupid warnings to shut up. I
> suspect that the sum of all the code written to shut them is larger
> than what haproxy 1.0 used to be :-/
>
> The man page says we can disable this crap using
> -Walloc-size-larger-than=SIZE_MAX but on my compiler (8.2) it simply
> fails to build. However when passing explicit values not even that
> large, I don't get any such warning, so I'm starting to think that
> it's a real bug of GCC 9.2, because quite frankly, aside calling
> calloc() with a char or short in argument, there's almost no way out
> of this absurdity.
>
> For me, calling it with -Walloc-size-larger-than=-1 makes it stay
> silent. is it also the case for you ? You can patch your Makefile this
> way:
>
> diff --git a/Makefile b/Makefile
> index 8399f6ca35..4757bc77e6 100644
> --- a/Makefile
> +++ b/Makefile
> @@ -199,6 +199,7 @@ SPEC_CFLAGS += $(call cc-opt,-Wshift-negative-value)
> SPEC_CFLAGS += $(call cc-opt,-Wshift-overflow=2)
> SPEC_CFLAGS += $(call cc-opt,-Wduplicated-cond)
> SPEC_CFLAGS += $(call cc-opt,-Wnull-dereference)
> +SPEC_CFLAGS += $(call cc-opt,-Walloc-size-larger-than=-1)
>
CC src/cfgparse.o
src/cfgparse.c: In function ‘check_config_validity’:
src/cfgparse.c:3642:33: warning: product ‘2147483648 * 8’ of arguments 1
and 2 exceeds ‘SIZE_MAX’ [-Walloc-size-larger-than=]
newsrv->idle_orphan_conns = calloc((unsigned int)global.nbthread,
sizeof(*newsrv->idle_orphan_conns));
^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
src/cfgparse.c:3642:33: note: argument 1 in the range [2147483648,
4294967295]
In file included from src/cfgparse.c:24:
/usr/arm-linux-gnueabihf/include/stdlib.h:541:14: note: in a call to
allocation function ‘calloc’ declared here
extern void *calloc (size_t __nmemb, size_t __size)
^~~~~~
CC src/checks.o
CC src/backend.o
why is it complaining about "product ‘2147483648 * 8" ?
>
> #### Memory usage tuning
> # If small memory footprint is required, you can reduce the buffer size.
> There
>
> If it still fails, we'll have to ignore it and wait for this monstrosity
> to be fixed by their authors :-/
>
> Willy
>
