Hi Siddhesh,
On 2/17/23 22:39, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:
> On 2023-02-17 16:20, Alejandro Colomar wrote:
>> Link:
>> Link:
>> Cc: Andreas Schwab
>> Cc: David Malcolm
>> Cc: Florian Weimer
>> Cc: Iker Pedrosa
>> Cc: Jens Gustedt
>> Cc: Jonathan Wakely
>> Cc: Mark Wielaard
>> Cc: Martin Uecker
>> Cc: Michael Kerrisk
>> Cc: Paul Eggert
>> Cc: Sam James
>> Cc: Siddhesh Poyarekar
>> Cc: Yann Droneaud
>> Signed-off-by: Alejandro Colomar
>> ---
>>
>> Hi Siddhesh,
>>
>> Here's a patch for it. It is untested yet. Please have a look at it.
>> I'm not used to GCC customs, so corrections are welcome :)
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Alex
>
> You've got the customs right as far as submission is concerned; gcc
> accepts patches under DCO. I'm not a maintainer though, so I can't
> approve the change, I can only comment on it in the hope of influencing
> maintainers' opinions.
:)
> In any case it's probably suitable as a proposal
> for gcc 14, given that 13 is in stage 4, regression fixes only.
Sure, 14 is good.
>
> I'm split about where -Wuse-after-free=3 should be enabled. On the one
> hand, I'd like it to go into -Wall and alongside _FORTIFY_SOURCE=3,
> given that the latter already breaks the incorrect provenance
> assumptions in such code patterns. However on the other hand, it may
> lead to annoyed developers, even though the usage is, strictly speaking,
> UB. I don't know about the false positive rate of -Wuse-after-free=3
> either (specifically in the context of UB-ness of the code it warns
> about), maybe someone else may be able to chime in on that.
>
> Maybe a good compromise here is -Wextra, but if there's consensus
> developing towards adding it to -Wall, I'll happily jump to that side.
Since -Wall already had -Wuaf=2, and to not overcomplicate it, I put it
in -Wall too. Anyway, I don't expect it to have many false positives,
but maybe someone else can chime in. Both are fine, IMO. I use
-Wall -Wextra always together, so I wouldn't even notice :)
>
> Thanks,
> Sid
On 2/17/23 22:41, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:
> On 2023-02-17 16:39, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:
>> You've got the customs right as far as submission is concerned; gcc
>
> Oh, one correction: patches typically go to gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu
> dot org.
Okay, I'll take that note for next time. For this one, should I resend,
or is it okay as is? Both are fine for me.
Cheers,
Alex
--
GPG key fingerprint: A9348594CE31283A826FBDD8D57633D441E25BB5