From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-patches-return-393521-listarch-gcc-patches=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 121657 invoked by alias); 13 Mar 2015 18:14:39 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gcc-patches.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 121633 invoked by uid 89); 13 Mar 2015 18:14:39 -0000
Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none
X-Virus-Found: No
X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=0.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM,KAM_FROM_URIBL_PCCC,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS autolearn=no version=3.3.2
X-Spam-User: qpsmtpd, 2 recipients
X-HELO: mail-ob0-f170.google.com
Received: from mail-ob0-f170.google.com (HELO mail-ob0-f170.google.com) (209.85.214.170) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES128-GCM-SHA256 encrypted) ESMTPS; Fri, 13 Mar 2015 18:14:38 +0000
Received: by obcwp4 with SMTP id wp4so21458461obc.4;        Fri, 13 Mar 2015 11:14:36 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.182.250.193 with SMTP id ze1mr39882842obc.70.1426270476333; Fri, 13 Mar 2015 11:14:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.60.146.129 with HTTP; Fri, 13 Mar 2015 11:14:36 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <1426269343.8624.206.camel@surprise>
References: <CAFULd4aGQqy9-g6AC-ZrNs3MaSKTB3q58BdbNbqaESSTo5ZtKA@mail.gmail.com>	<1426269343.8624.206.camel@surprise>
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2015 18:14:00 -0000
Message-ID: <CAFULd4baWuVk5QXHKwUGY50hyDqjPZqzqtCxsGyq55rLf2zfVw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH, jit]: Robustify vasprintf error checks
From: Uros Bizjak <ubizjak@gmail.com>
To: David Malcolm <dmalcolm@redhat.com>
Cc: jit@gcc.gnu.org, "gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org" <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
X-SW-Source: 2015-03/txt/msg00761.txt.bz2

On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 6:55 PM, David Malcolm <dmalcolm@redhat.com> wrote:

>> As documented in [1] asprintf and vasprintf return:

> I assume that we can rely that any vasprintf implementation manages on
> failure to at least either write NULL to *ret or to return -1, even if
> some of them fail to do both?

Yes, this is correct. The patch checks both ways. Please also note
that linux manpages claim that in case of error, *ret will be
undefined, while FreeBSD implementation will set *ret to NULL on
error.

> OK for trunk.

Thanks, commited.

Uros.