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.devel Subject: Re: Emacs pretest 28.1.90 is out Date: Fri, 01 Jul 2022 13:59:25 +0300 Message-ID: <83pmipdroy.fsf@gnu.org> References: <86o7y9xq00.fsf@gnu.org> Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="11874"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: stefan@marxist.se, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Arash Esbati Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Fri Jul 01 13:00:28 2022 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@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 1o7ENu-0002xU-Of for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Fri, 01 Jul 2022 13:00:26 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:55214 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1o7ENs-00068f-Nq for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Fri, 01 Jul 2022 07:00:25 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:48164) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1o7EMn-0005Qw-Ig for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 01 Jul 2022 06:59:17 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]:59554) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1o7EMn-0005UK-1r; Fri, 01 Jul 2022 06:59:17 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gnu.org; s=fencepost-gnu-org; h=References:Subject:In-Reply-To:To:From:Date: mime-version; bh=GrV8DMfF/N7j+xP8aQRGGWpusiUnTL4sXbAnU58dapo=; b=NzM0ryMguzGT sw97zD0ZUjusjERoa555Mw6qITVRwaG3pwv5r0PtozXzNV0ZBSC20YmoqZm0MQedMdTnVp3nJ6wuq IIyLhpHVEyVSnihhMWXQyUSwwY3pKlPG8uZYrmFrH2a8vOWJvUfP6sqV6eqPCF7uFKuPmbGHFapXz KoOATYPjwaCCdQGKjGzZNTidQrB5O5luXryVoi3sdYbWokURP7YFd/EpxI6v2HHt2+W2LMH1vJpv2 LdIOLPLZd29vGMWOZSmpnt9n8QbG7mes3uVmPLduFgKsZAX3fXfteia7SNwKu4z1NMv8vYEHSFoqH S6O9/y3LInnbQN8WoTlGDQ==; Original-Received: from [87.69.77.57] (port=1757 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 1o7EMk-0001ZR-Ow; Fri, 01 Jul 2022 06:59:15 -0400 In-Reply-To: <86o7y9xq00.fsf@gnu.org> (message from Arash Esbati on Fri, 01 Jul 2022 09:15:43 +0200) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "Emacs-devel" Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.devel:291774 Archived-At: > From: Arash Esbati > Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org > Date: Fri, 01 Jul 2022 09:15:43 +0200 > > Stefan Kangas writes: > > > The first pretest for what will be the 28.2 release of Emacs (the > > extensible text editor) is available at: > > > > https://alpha.gnu.org/gnu/emacs/pretest/emacs-28.1.90.tar.xz > > Thanks, builds fine on Win10 with Mingw64 (I ran only ./configure and > make). I get only these warnings: > > CCLD make-docfile.exe > CCLD make-fingerprint.exe > In function 'main': > cc1.exe: warning: '__builtin_memcpy' writing 12 bytes into a region of size between 0 and 7 [-Wstringop-overflow=] > In file included from ctags.c:2: > etags.c:1429:21: note: destination object of size [0, 7] allocated by 'xmalloc' > 1429 | char *cmd = xmalloc (2 * strlen (tagfile) + sizeof "sort -u -o.."); > | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Does anyone understand why it says "size [0, 7]"? The result sizeof should yield 13, so even if GCC considers the case of strlen returning zero, the result should be at least 13. In my case (GCC 9.3) disassembly of the 'main' function shows that indeed the code calls strlen and then adds 13 to its result. There are quite a few hits for -Wstringop-overflow on the Internet, so maybe this is a GCC bug? Maybe you should downgrade to a GCC whose version is not XX.1.0. I see nothing wrong with that code, FWIW.