пт, 24 янв. 2020 г. в 00:54, Willy Tarreau <w...@1wt.eu>: > On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 12:46:12AM +0500, ???? ??????? wrote: > > > 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=] > > Pfff.... The only good news is that it takes -1 as SIZE_MAX. > > > 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] > (...) > > why is it complaining about "product '2147483648 * 8" ? > > because calloc multiplies the two fields and gcc decided that the largest > value we could possibly pass to the first one if we were as stupid as it > is is 2147483648. Interestingly it took the largest negative value turned > to positive and ignored the positive ones that can be turned to the second > half that are negative if nbthread was negative. > > I really think this test is totally bogus and that there is no way to > express it correctly. I mean, gcc only lets us use 8, 16, 32 or 64 bits. > If you need to calloc a few megabytes, you'll be forced to apply a mask > to the value just to shut it up, and *create* the overflow problem yourself > when it didn't exist. > > Let's give up on this one if it doesn't cause too much trouble to you. > Otherwise we might cheat doing this : > > calloc((unsigned short)global.nbthread, ...) > > But I really despise this given that we have to make the code wrong just > to please this shitty compiler. >
it was ubuntu 18.04 + gcc8, I'll try 19.10 + gcc9 > > Willy >
