On Mon, Dec 27, 2021 at 11:32:49AM +0100, Kornel Benko wrote: > Am Mon, 27 Dec 2021 10:41:49 +0100 > schrieb Pavel Sanda <sa...@lyx.org>: > > > On Sun, Dec 26, 2021 at 09:48:11AM +0100, Kornel Benko wrote: > > > > I guess clang is not happy with (((struct sockaddr_un *) 0)->sun_path) > > > > > > > > Our own code has: > > > > #if !defined(SUN_LEN) > > > > #define SUN_LEN(su) \ > > > > (sizeof (*(su)) - sizeof ((su)->sun_path) + > > > > strlen((su)->sun_path)) > > > > #endif > > > > > > That was a good guess! With the attached change the message does not > > > appear anymore. > > > > Apart from that error message is there some functional problem for LyX? > > Not that I am aware of. It manifests only at runtime with sanitize + clang ...
Neither am I. > > Otherwise I would leave things as they are, it's not our code and sooner > > or later someone will report this to libc maintainers. > > I think it is unlikely (who else is using sanitize + clang with this code?) Me, but I'm not planning to report either. > > (Or it could be > > you? :) > > :( > > > Or add a comment once we forget... > > Maybe some native English speaker would fit here better. A comment in LyX's code? Something just like the following? // Using Clang and fsanitize suggests there is an issue here but we do // not understand the code enough to change it and we are not aware of // how to trigger a crash or other issue while using LyX, so we leave // it as is. For ML discussion, see here: // https://www.mail-archive.com/search?l=mid&q=20211227113249.53bf5a63%40admin1-desktop Scott
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
-- lyx-devel mailing list lyx-devel@lists.lyx.org http://lists.lyx.org/mailman/listinfo/lyx-devel
