[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20161220115109.GB289@x4>
Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2016 12:51:09 +0100
From: Markus Trippelsdorf <markus@...ppelsdorf.de>
To: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Cc: tglx@...utronix.de, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...nel.org,
linux-tip-commits@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [tip:x86/urgent] x86/tools: Fix gcc-7 warning in relocs.c
On 2016.12.20 at 03:10 -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> On 12/20/16 02:00, Markus Trippelsdorf wrote:
> > On 2016.12.20 at 01:30 -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> >> I'd strongly prefer a non-data-dependent solution, specifically adding
> >> at the top of sort_relocs():
> >>
> >> if (!r->count)
> >> return;
> >>
> >> However, by my reading of the C and POSIX standards, this is a gcc
> >> error: qsort() should do nothing if the count is zero.
> >
> > No, it is invoking undefined behavior.
>
> > Notice the nonnull attribute in /usr/include/stdlib.h:
> >
> > 739 /* Sort NMEMB elements of BASE, of SIZE bytes each,
> > 740 using COMPAR to perform the comparisons. */
> > 741 extern void qsort (void *__base, size_t __nmemb, size_t __size,
> > 742 __compar_fn_t __compar) __nonnull ((1, 4));
> >
> > But feel free to revert my patch and add your solution.
>
> Well, s/gcc/glibc/ then.
>
> > The qsort() function shall sort an array of nel objects, the
> > initial element of which is pointed to by base
NULL does not point to any object, therefore it is UB.
--
Markus
Powered by blists - more mailing lists