On Tue, 27 Dec 2022 01:47:25 +0100, Jeremie Courreges-Anglas wrote:
> That's for the kernel part. libsa diff below, ok?
Of course. OK millert@
- todd
On Sat, Dec 24 2022, Patrick Wildt wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 22, 2022 at 01:14:57AM +0100, Patrick Wildt wrote:
>> On Tue, Dec 20, 2022 at 05:48:41PM -0700, Todd C. Miller wrote:
>> > On Tue, 20 Dec 2022 23:44:08 +0100, Patrick Wildt wrote:
>> >
>> > > clang complains when the function is declared
On Thu, Dec 22 2022, Todd C. Miller wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Dec 2022 02:08:42 +0100, Jeremie Courreges-Anglas wrote:
>
>> https://github.com/jcourreges/openbsd-src/commit/4862df383ccb8a8e03d5c11b4f
>> b739b6a3a5a7c7
>>
>> Sadly making the size available in the declaration doesn't seem to be
>>
On Sat, Dec 24 2022, Patrick Wildt wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 22, 2022 at 01:14:57AM +0100, Patrick Wildt wrote:
>> On Tue, Dec 20, 2022 at 05:48:41PM -0700, Todd C. Miller wrote:
>> > On Tue, 20 Dec 2022 23:44:08 +0100, Patrick Wildt wrote:
>> >
>> > > clang complains when the function is declared
On Sat, 24 Dec 2022 12:52:59 +0100, Patrick Wildt wrote:
> Right, sorry for derailing the thread with a different discussion.
> Here's a diff only for the array/ptr changes.
OK millert@
After some testing this seems to only affect code where the prototype
and the function declaration use a mix
On Sat, Dec 24, 2022 at 12:52:59PM +0100, Patrick Wildt wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 22, 2022 at 01:14:57AM +0100, Patrick Wildt wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 20, 2022 at 05:48:41PM -0700, Todd C. Miller wrote:
> > > On Tue, 20 Dec 2022 23:44:08 +0100, Patrick Wildt wrote:
> > >
> > > > clang complains when the
On Thu, Dec 22, 2022 at 01:14:57AM +0100, Patrick Wildt wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 20, 2022 at 05:48:41PM -0700, Todd C. Miller wrote:
> > On Tue, 20 Dec 2022 23:44:08 +0100, Patrick Wildt wrote:
> >
> > > clang complains when the function is declared with a fixed array size in
> > > a parameter while
On Thu, 22 Dec 2022 02:08:42 +0100, Jeremie Courreges-Anglas wrote:
> https://github.com/jcourreges/openbsd-src/commit/4862df383ccb8a8e03d5c11b4f
> b739b6a3a5a7c7
>
> Sadly making the size available in the declaration doesn't seem to be
> clang any smarter (yet?). clang won't warn about
Jeremie Courreges-Anglas wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 21 2022, "Theo de Raadt" wrote:
> >> But yeah, maybe we'll just flip the default option in LLVM and then
> >> we'll just not use that warning... at all?
> >
> > is this specific warning finding dangerous bugs? is it finding a
> > substantial
> >
On Wed, Dec 21 2022, "Theo de Raadt" wrote:
>> But yeah, maybe we'll just flip the default option in LLVM and then
>> we'll just not use that warning... at all?
>
> is this specific warning finding dangerous bugs? is it finding a substantial
> number of dangerous bugs?
No, but if we remove
> So for base we don't really need to tweak the defaults, I'd
> rather see what happens in ports wrt -Wdeprecated-non-prototype, and
> I don't think it's the biggest offender.
If libz is hitting this, then I think the situation will be dire in
ports.
I think the clang developers are so busy
On Thu, Dec 22 2022, Patrick Wildt wrote:
> Am Thu, Dec 22, 2022 at 01:57:37AM +0100 schrieb Jeremie Courreges-Anglas:
>> On Thu, Dec 22 2022, Theo Buehler wrote:
>> > On Thu, Dec 22, 2022 at 11:39:41AM +1100, Jonathan Gray wrote:
>> >> On Thu, Dec 22, 2022 at 01:20:32AM +0100, Theo Buehler
> But yeah, maybe we'll just flip the default option in LLVM and then
> we'll just not use that warning... at all?
is this specific warning finding dangerous bugs? is it finding a substantial
number of dangerous bugs?
On Tue, Dec 20 2022, Todd C. Miller wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Dec 2022 23:44:08 +0100, Patrick Wildt wrote:
>
>> clang complains when the function is declared with a fixed array size in
>> a parameter while the prototype is unbounded, like this:
>>
>> /usr/src/sys/net/pf.c:4353:54: error: argument
Am Thu, Dec 22, 2022 at 01:57:37AM +0100 schrieb Jeremie Courreges-Anglas:
> On Thu, Dec 22 2022, Theo Buehler wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 22, 2022 at 11:39:41AM +1100, Jonathan Gray wrote:
> >> On Thu, Dec 22, 2022 at 01:20:32AM +0100, Theo Buehler wrote:
> >> > > Any concerns regarding the changes
On Thu, Dec 22 2022, Theo Buehler wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 22, 2022 at 11:39:41AM +1100, Jonathan Gray wrote:
>> On Thu, Dec 22, 2022 at 01:20:32AM +0100, Theo Buehler wrote:
>> > > Any concerns regarding the changes in libz? It introduces diff to
>> > > upstream, but the recent commits seemed to
Theo Buehler wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 22, 2022 at 11:39:41AM +1100, Jonathan Gray wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 22, 2022 at 01:20:32AM +0100, Theo Buehler wrote:
> > > > Any concerns regarding the changes in libz? It introduces diff to
> > > > upstream, but the recent commits seemed to indicate we have
On Thu, Dec 22, 2022 at 11:39:41AM +1100, Jonathan Gray wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 22, 2022 at 01:20:32AM +0100, Theo Buehler wrote:
> > > Any concerns regarding the changes in libz? It introduces diff to
> > > upstream, but the recent commits seemed to indicate we have forked
> > > anyway?
> >
> >
On Thu, Dec 22, 2022 at 01:20:32AM +0100, Theo Buehler wrote:
> > Any concerns regarding the changes in libz? It introduces diff to
> > upstream, but the recent commits seemed to indicate we have forked
> > anyway?
>
> I've worked hard to keep the diff to upstream minimal. Why are these
>
Theo Buehler wrote:
> > Any concerns regarding the changes in libz? It introduces diff to
> > upstream, but the recent commits seemed to indicate we have forked
> > anyway?
>
> I've worked hard to keep the diff to upstream minimal. Why are these
> changes needed?
becauase clang believes they
> Any concerns regarding the changes in libz? It introduces diff to
> upstream, but the recent commits seemed to indicate we have forked
> anyway?
I've worked hard to keep the diff to upstream minimal. Why are these
changes needed?
On Tue, Dec 20, 2022 at 05:48:41PM -0700, Todd C. Miller wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Dec 2022 23:44:08 +0100, Patrick Wildt wrote:
>
> > clang complains when the function is declared with a fixed array size in
> > a parameter while the prototype is unbounded, like this:
> >
> >
On Tue, 20 Dec 2022 23:44:08 +0100, Patrick Wildt wrote:
> clang complains when the function is declared with a fixed array size in
> a parameter while the prototype is unbounded, like this:
>
> /usr/src/sys/net/pf.c:4353:54: error: argument 'sns' of type 'struct pf_src_n
> ode *[4]' with
Hi,
clang complains when the function is declared with a fixed array size in
a parameter while the prototype is unbounded, like this:
/usr/src/sys/net/pf.c:4353:54: error: argument 'sns' of type 'struct
pf_src_node *[4]' with mismatched bound [-Werror,-Warray-parameter]
struct
24 matches
Mail list logo
