re: NULL pointer arithmetic issues

2020-02-23 Thread matthew green
> It seems to me the proper approach is to teach the tool to accept > this, and to avoid cluttering the tree with churn to work around the > tool's deficiency, unless there's actually a serious compelling > argument -- beyond a language-lawyering troll -- that (char *)NULL + 0 > is meaningfully

Re: NULL pointer arithmetic issues

2020-02-23 Thread Taylor R Campbell
> Date: Sun, 23 Feb 2020 22:51:08 +0100 > From: Kamil Rytarowski > > On 23.02.2020 20:08, Taylor R Campbell wrote: > Date: Sun, 23 Feb 2020 22:51:08 +0100 > From: Kamil Rytarowski > > On 23.02.2020 20:08, Taylor R Campbell wrote: > >> Date: Sat, 22 Feb 2020 17:25:42 +0100 > >> From: Kamil

Re: NULL pointer arithmetic issues

2020-02-23 Thread Kamil Rytarowski
On 23.02.2020 20:08, Taylor R Campbell wrote: >> Date: Sat, 22 Feb 2020 17:25:42 +0100 >> From: Kamil Rytarowski >> >> When running the ATF tests under MKLIBCSANITIZER [1], there are many >> NULL pointer arithmetic issues . >> >>

Re: NULL pointer arithmetic issues

2020-02-23 Thread Taylor R Campbell
> Date: Sat, 22 Feb 2020 17:25:42 +0100 > From: Kamil Rytarowski > > When running the ATF tests under MKLIBCSANITIZER [1], there are many > NULL pointer arithmetic issues . > > http://netbsd.org/~kamil/mksanitizer-reports/ubsan-2020-02-22-null-pointer.txt > > These issues are in macros like: >