public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "kcc at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org> To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug sanitizer/55309] gcc's address-sanitizer 66% slower than clang's Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2013 14:54:00 -0000 [thread overview] Message-ID: <bug-55309-4-hok3yLJiFO@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> (raw) In-Reply-To: <bug-55309-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55309 --- Comment #50 from Kostya Serebryany <kcc at gcc dot gnu.org> 2013-02-22 14:54:24 UTC --- reproducer: #include <string.h> #include <stdio.h> int foo(const char *x, const char *y, int len) { return memcmp(x, y, len); } int main() { printf("%d\n", foo("perlio", "unix", 6)); } clang does not report a warning here, but gcc does. This is a gray area for me, not sure if we should treat this as a buggy code. on one hand, memcmp gets size=6, while one of the buffers is smaller. otoh, the first bytes of the strings are different and memcmp should not read the rest. I vaguely remember some similar case where we decided that the code is correct. Anyone?
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-02-22 14:54 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 59+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2012-11-13 10:01 [Bug other/55309] New: " markus at trippelsdorf dot de 2012-11-13 21:10 ` [Bug other/55309] " konstantin.s.serebryany at gmail dot com 2012-11-13 21:31 ` markus at trippelsdorf dot de 2012-11-14 7:52 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-14 16:38 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-14 17:03 ` markus at trippelsdorf dot de 2013-02-05 9:22 ` [Bug sanitizer/55309] " kcc at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-02-05 9:43 ` kcc at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-02-05 9:56 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-02-05 10:31 ` kcc at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-02-05 10:42 ` kcc at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-02-05 10:55 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-02-05 11:18 ` markus at trippelsdorf dot de 2013-02-05 11:24 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-02-05 11:26 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-02-05 12:23 ` kcc at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-02-06 10:56 ` dodji at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-02-06 11:19 ` kcc at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-02-06 12:25 ` kcc at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-02-06 12:39 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-02-06 12:43 ` kcc at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-02-06 12:49 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-02-06 15:03 ` dodji at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-02-07 5:02 ` kcc at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-02-07 17:01 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-02-07 17:18 ` dvyukov at google dot com 2013-02-08 6:31 ` kcc at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-02-08 9:02 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-02-08 9:13 ` kcc at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-02-08 9:25 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-02-11 14:43 ` kcc at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-02-11 15:03 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-02-12 6:48 ` kcc at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-02-12 7:03 ` kcc at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-02-12 8:40 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-02-12 8:47 ` dvyukov at google dot com 2013-02-12 8:59 ` kcc at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-02-12 11:18 ` kcc at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-02-12 11:31 ` kcc at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-02-12 11:42 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-02-12 14:00 ` howarth at nitro dot med.uc.edu 2013-02-12 14:12 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-02-12 14:42 ` howarth at nitro dot med.uc.edu 2013-02-22 7:11 ` kcc at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-02-22 8:31 ` Joost.VandeVondele at mat dot ethz.ch 2013-02-22 8:36 ` kcc at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-02-22 13:09 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-02-22 13:52 ` kcc at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-02-22 13:55 ` Joost.VandeVondele at mat dot ethz.ch 2013-02-22 14:30 ` kcc at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-02-22 14:54 ` kcc at gcc dot gnu.org [this message] 2013-02-22 15:01 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-02-22 15:04 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-02-22 15:06 ` kcc at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-02-22 15:14 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-02-22 16:11 ` joseph at codesourcery dot com 2013-02-26 7:43 ` kcc at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-02-28 11:32 ` kcc at gcc dot gnu.org 2014-01-27 8:22 ` trippels at gcc dot gnu.org
Reply instructions: You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email using any one of the following methods: * Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client, and reply-to-all from there: mbox Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style * Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to switches of git-send-email(1): git send-email \ --in-reply-to=bug-55309-4-hok3yLJiFO@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ \ --to=gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org \ --cc=gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org \ /path/to/YOUR_REPLY https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html * If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header via mailto: links, try the mailto: linkBe sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox; as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).