On Wed, Dec 6, 2023 at 10:13 AM Martin Uecker wrote:
>
> Am Mittwoch, dem 06.12.2023 um 16:01 +0100 schrieb Jakub Jelinek:
> > On Wed, Dec 06, 2023 at 03:56:10PM +0100, Martin Uecker wrote:
> > > > That would be my preference because then the allocation size is
> > > > correct and it is purely a
Am Mittwoch, dem 06.12.2023 um 16:01 +0100 schrieb Jakub Jelinek:
> On Wed, Dec 06, 2023 at 03:56:10PM +0100, Martin Uecker wrote:
> > > That would be my preference because then the allocation size is
> > > correct and it is purely a style warning.
> > > It doesn't follow how the warning is
On Wed, Dec 06, 2023 at 03:56:10PM +0100, Martin Uecker wrote:
> > That would be my preference because then the allocation size is
> > correct and it is purely a style warning.
> > It doesn't follow how the warning is described:
> > "Warn about calls to allocation functions decorated with
Am Mittwoch, dem 06.12.2023 um 15:21 +0100 schrieb Jakub Jelinek:
> On Wed, Dec 06, 2023 at 02:34:10PM +0100, Martin Uecker wrote:
> > > Further I think
> > > "size less than or equal to the size requested"
> > > is quite ambiguous in the calloc case, isn't the size requested in the
> > > calloc
On 2023-12-06 09:41, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Wed, Dec 06, 2023 at 09:30:32AM -0500, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:
We have the -Wmemset-transposed-args warning, couldn't we
have a similar one for calloc, and perhaps do it solely in
the case where one uses sizeof of the type used in the cast
pointer?
On Wed, Dec 06, 2023 at 09:30:32AM -0500, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:
> > We have the -Wmemset-transposed-args warning, couldn't we
> > have a similar one for calloc, and perhaps do it solely in
> > the case where one uses sizeof of the type used in the cast
> > pointer?
> > So warn for
> > (struct
On 2023-12-06 09:21, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Wed, Dec 06, 2023 at 02:34:10PM +0100, Martin Uecker wrote:
Further I think
"size less than or equal to the size requested"
is quite ambiguous in the calloc case, isn't the size requested in the
calloc case actually nmemb * size rather than just
On Wed, Dec 06, 2023 at 02:34:10PM +0100, Martin Uecker wrote:
> > Further I think
> > "size less than or equal to the size requested"
> > is quite ambiguous in the calloc case, isn't the size requested in the
> > calloc case actually nmemb * size rather than just size?
>
> This is unclear but it
Am Mittwoch, dem 06.12.2023 um 14:34 +0100 schrieb Martin Uecker:
> Am Mittwoch, dem 06.12.2023 um 13:57 +0100 schrieb Jakub Jelinek:
> > On Wed, Dec 06, 2023 at 08:31:12PM +0800, Xi Ruoyao wrote:
> > > On Wed, 2023-12-06 at 13:24 +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > > > I wonder if this part isn't too
Am Mittwoch, dem 06.12.2023 um 13:57 +0100 schrieb Jakub Jelinek:
> On Wed, Dec 06, 2023 at 08:31:12PM +0800, Xi Ruoyao wrote:
> > On Wed, 2023-12-06 at 13:24 +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > > I wonder if this part isn't too pedantic or more of a code style.
> > > Some packages fail to build with
On Wed, Dec 06, 2023 at 08:31:12PM +0800, Xi Ruoyao wrote:
> On Wed, 2023-12-06 at 13:24 +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > I wonder if this part isn't too pedantic or more of a code style.
> > Some packages fail to build with this with -Werror because they do
> > struct S *p = calloc (sizeof
On Wed, 2023-12-06 at 13:24 +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> I wonder if this part isn't too pedantic or more of a code style.
> Some packages fail to build with this with -Werror because they do
> struct S *p = calloc (sizeof (struct S), 1);
> or similar. It is true that calloc arguments are
On Mon, Sep 18, 2023 at 11:26:49PM +0200, Martin Uecker via Gcc-patches wrote:
> Add option Walloc-size that warns about allocations that have
> insufficient storage for the target type of the pointer the
> storage is assigned to.
>
> PR c/71219
> gcc:
> * doc/invoke.texi: Document
On Wed, 1 Nov 2023, Martin Uecker wrote:
> Am Dienstag, dem 31.10.2023 um 22:19 + schrieb Joseph Myers:
> > On Tue, 31 Oct 2023, Martin Uecker wrote:
> >
> > > > + if (TREE_CODE (arg) == INTEGER_CST
> > > > + && tree_int_cst_lt (arg, TYPE_SIZE_UNIT (ttl)))
> >
>
Am Dienstag, dem 31.10.2023 um 22:19 + schrieb Joseph Myers:
> On Tue, 31 Oct 2023, Martin Uecker wrote:
>
> > > + if (TREE_CODE (arg) == INTEGER_CST
> > > + && tree_int_cst_lt (arg, TYPE_SIZE_UNIT (ttl)))
>
> What if TYPE_SIZE_UNIT (ttl) is not an INTEGER_CST? I don't see
On Tue, 31 Oct 2023, Martin Uecker wrote:
> > + if (TREE_CODE (arg) == INTEGER_CST
> > + && tree_int_cst_lt (arg, TYPE_SIZE_UNIT (ttl)))
What if TYPE_SIZE_UNIT (ttl) is not an INTEGER_CST? I don't see any tests
of the case of assigning to a pointer to a variably sized type.
Am Montag, dem 18.09.2023 um 23:26 +0200 schrieb Martin Uecker:
>
> Compared to the previous version I changed the name of the
> warning to "Walloc-size" which matches "Wanalyzer-allocation-size"
> but is still in line with the other -Walloc-something warnings
> we have. I also added it to
Compared to the previous version I changed the name of the
warning to "Walloc-size" which matches "Wanalyzer-allocation-size"
but is still in line with the other -Walloc-something warnings
we have. I also added it to Wextra.
I found PR71219 that requests the warning and points out that
it is
18 matches
Mail list logo
