On 8/20/15, Bernhard Schommer <bernhardschommer at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi, > > the warning which is mentioned in the ticket > f51d9501800de5a0fb69d5048ce6662981b461ec still occurs also with newer gcc > versions. The ticket was closed after a gcc bug report was opened. The gcc > bug was closed due to a missing testcase. > I had a quick look at the problem and it seems that the warning is right > since in certain context and with optimizations enabled gcc can prove > that EXPR_FULLSIZE > - nSize == 0 and thus the triggered warning for this is correct.
I cannot find anything in the memset() documentation that says that the third parameter must be greater than zero. Am I missing something? Do there exist implementions of memset() for which that is so? On the other hand, if all conforming implementations of memset() must work correctly even if their third argument is zero, why is gcc warning me about this? > Replacing > memset(&zAlloc[nSize], 0, EXPR_FULLSIZE-nSize); > By > if(EXPR_FULLSIZE-nSize > 0) > memset(&zAlloc[nSize], 0, EXPR_FULLSIZE-nSize); > would remove the warning, > > Cheers, > -Bernhard > _______________________________________________ > sqlite-users mailing list > sqlite-users at mailinglists.sqlite.org > http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users > -- D. Richard Hipp drh at sqlite.org
