From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#50767: 28.0.50; Warnings about snprintf in image.c on armv7l Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2021 19:00:48 +0300 Message-ID: <838ryvlhov.fsf@gnu.org> References: <87zgs3te9f.fsf@tcd.ie> <878rzmuddd.fsf@tcd.ie> <83ilyqtqzc.fsf@gnu.org> <87zgrbhau7.fsf@tcd.ie> Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="6457"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: 50767@debbugs.gnu.org, alan@idiocy.org To: "Basil L. Contovounesios" Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Thu Oct 14 18:24:30 2021 Return-path: Envelope-to: geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by ciao.gmane.io with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1mb3Ww-0001Qv-60 for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org; Thu, 14 Oct 2021 18:24:30 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:42126 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1mb3Wu-0006wj-64 for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org; Thu, 14 Oct 2021 12:24:28 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:55398) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1mb3BC-0002UG-Mt for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Thu, 14 Oct 2021 12:02:02 -0400 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.43]:53590) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1mb3BC-0003SW-DR for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Thu, 14 Oct 2021 12:02:02 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1mb3BC-0004Xx-BA for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Thu, 14 Oct 2021 12:02:02 -0400 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: Eli Zaretskii Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2021 16:02:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 50767 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: patch Original-Received: via spool by 50767-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B50767.163422727617404 (code B ref 50767); Thu, 14 Oct 2021 16:02:02 +0000 Original-Received: (at 50767) by debbugs.gnu.org; 14 Oct 2021 16:01:16 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:36901 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1mb3AS-0004WY-Cx for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 14 Oct 2021 12:01:16 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:53312) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1mb3AO-0004WC-UR for 50767@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 14 Oct 2021 12:01:13 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]:52730) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1mb3AH-00078u-WD; Thu, 14 Oct 2021 12:01:06 -0400 Original-Received: from [87.69.77.57] (port=2512 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1mb3A3-0003zt-7K; Thu, 14 Oct 2021 12:00:57 -0400 In-Reply-To: <87zgrbhau7.fsf@tcd.ie> (contovob@tcd.ie) X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list X-BeenThere: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org List-Id: "Bug reports for GNU Emacs, the Swiss army knife of text editors" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "bug-gnu-emacs" Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.bugs:217235 Archived-At: > From: "Basil L. Contovounesios" > Cc: Alan Third , 50767@debbugs.gnu.org > Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2021 16:42:24 +0100 > > > AFAIR, there's no need to check the return value of xmalloc, because > > it doesn't return if it cannot allocate memory. > > Are you thinking about xalloc? No, I'm thinking xmalloc. > If not, could you please point me to the part of xmalloc that > doesn't return (except for the !initialized branch in memory_full)? > I'm afraid I couldn't spot it. This part: if (!val && size) memory_full (size);