linux-kernel - [PATCH v2 nolibc 02/53] tools/nolibc: tests: fix build on non-c99 compliant compilers

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <20230612204514.292087-2-paulmck@kernel.org>
Date:   Mon, 12 Jun 2023 13:44:23 -0700
From:   "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>
To:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     gwml@...r.gnuweeb.org, kernel-team@...a.com, w@....eu,
        Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>,
        Thomas Weißschuh <linux@...ssschuh.net>,
        "Paul E . McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>
Subject: [PATCH v2 nolibc 02/53] tools/nolibc: tests: fix build on non-c99 compliant compilers

From: Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>

Commit 9735716830f2 ("tools/nolibc: tests: add test for -fstack-protector")
brought a declaration inside the initialization statement of a for loop,
which breaks the build on compilers that do not default to c99
compatibility, making it more difficult to validate that the lib still
builds on such compilers. The fix is trivial, so let's move the
declaration to the variables block of the function instead. No backport
is needed.

Cc: Thomas Weißschuh <linux@...ssschuh.net>
Signed-off-by: Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...nel.org>
---
 tools/testing/selftests/nolibc/nolibc-test.c | 3 ++-
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/nolibc/nolibc-test.c b/tools/testing/selftests/nolibc/nolibc-test.c
index 47013b78972e..6f2f109569a3 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/nolibc/nolibc-test.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/nolibc/nolibc-test.c
@@ -671,8 +671,9 @@ static int smash_stack(void)
 {
 	char buf[100];
 	volatile char *ptr = buf;
+	size_t i;
 
-	for (size_t i = 0; i < 200; i++)
+	for (i = 0; i < 200; i++)
 		ptr[i] = 'P';
 
 	return 1;
-- 
2.40.1