From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 92290 invoked by alias); 9 Sep 2019 17:56:23 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 92199 invoked by uid 89); 9 Sep 2019 17:56:22 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_HELO_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 spammy=Warraybounds, 91679, sebor, Sebor X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Mon, 09 Sep 2019 17:56:21 +0000 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx06.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.16]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7E2B8302C08B; Mon, 9 Sep 2019 17:56:20 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost.localdomain (ovpn-112-3.rdu2.redhat.com [10.10.112.3]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E425C5C21A; Mon, 9 Sep 2019 17:56:19 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Re: [PATCH] bring -Warray-bounds closer to -Wstringop-overflow (PR91647, 91463, 91679) To: Martin Sebor , gcc-patches References: <6f596f6e-a388-4a84-0391-7b50c93622fc@gmail.com> From: Jeff Law Openpgp: preference=signencrypt Message-ID: <4bd054b6-3410-be64-474f-39eb95e9c931@redhat.com> Date: Mon, 09 Sep 2019 17:56:00 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <6f596f6e-a388-4a84-0391-7b50c93622fc@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2019-09/txt/msg00598.txt.bz2 On 9/6/19 5:26 PM, Martin Sebor wrote: > Just a heads up that I tested the patch with Glibc and the kernel. > It exposes some of the same "abuses" of (near) zero-length arrays > as the most recent improvement in this area.  In glibc, it > complains about code in fileops.c, iofwide.c, libc-tls.c, and > rtld.c.  The ones I looked at all look like the last one we saw. > I'll look into how to deal with them next.  In the kernel it > issues a variety of warnings that I need to investigate after > I get back from Cauldron. THanks. Good to know. jeff