Re: crash due to -fstack-protector false positive

2007-02-24 Thread Yakov Lerner
On 2/24/07, Bram Moolenaar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: -char_u di_key[1]; /* key (actually longer!) */ +char_u di_key[]; /* key (actually longer!) */ I think this is c99 vs c89 difference. C99 allows x[] as last member of the struct, but c89 does not. As Bram mentioned,

crash due to -fstack-protector false positive

2007-02-23 Thread Alexey I. Froloff
/* My free translation of * https://bugzilla.altlinux.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10911 */ i586-alt-linux-gcc (GCC) 4.1.1 20070105 (ALT Linux, build 4.1.1-alt11) glibc 2.5 (glibc-2_5-branch snapshot 20070112) Vim built with CFLAGS containing -fstack-protector (turned on by default in gcc). All Vim

Re: crash due to -fstack-protector false positive

2007-02-23 Thread Ali Akcaagac
On Fri, 2007-02-23 at 19:58 +0300, Alexey I. Froloff wrote: i586-alt-linux-gcc (GCC) 4.1.1 20070105 (ALT Linux, build 4.1.1-alt11) glibc 2.5 (glibc-2_5-branch snapshot 20070112) I think it's the stuff above where you need to look for bugs. GLIBC snapshot sounds unfinished and contains bugs to