On Sun, Jan 9, 2022 at 8:48 AM Noah Misch <n...@leadboat.com> wrote: > On Sun, Jan 09, 2022 at 04:37:32AM -0800, Zhihong Yu wrote: > > On Sat, Jan 8, 2022 at 11:32 PM Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > > > Noah Misch <n...@leadboat.com> writes: > > > > On further thought, I would write it this way: > > > > > > > - else > > > > + else if (ivlen != 0) > > > > memcpy(ivbuf, iv, ivlen); > > > > > > FWIW, I liked the "ivlen > 0" formulation better. They should be > > > equivalent, because ivlen is unsigned, but it just seems like "> 0" > > > is more natural. > > If I were considering the one code site in isolation, I'd pick "ivlen > 0". > But of the four sites identified so far, three have signed length > variables. > Since we're likely to get more examples of this pattern, some signed and > some > unsigned, I'd rather use a style that does the optimal thing whether or not > the variable is signed. What do you think? > > > Patch v4 is attached. > > Does this pass the test procedure shown upthread? > Hi, I installed gcc 4.9.3
When I ran: ./configure CFLAGS='-fsanitize=undefined -fsanitize-undefined-trap-on-error' I saw: configure:3977: $? = 0 configure:3966: gcc -V >&5 gcc: error: unrecognized command line option '-V' gcc: fatal error: no input files compilation terminated. configure:3977: $? = 1 configure:3966: gcc -qversion >&5 gcc: error: unrecognized command line option '-qversion' gcc: fatal error: no input files compilation terminated. configure:3977: $? = 1 configure:3997: checking whether the C compiler works configure:4019: gcc -fsanitize=undefined -fsanitize-undefined-trap-on-error conftest.c >&5 gcc: error: unrecognized command line option '-fsanitize-undefined-trap-on-error' configure:4023: $? = 1 configure:4061: result: no I wonder if a higher version gcc is needed. FYI
