GNU bug report logs - #49261
28.0.50; File Locking Breaks Presumptuous Toolchains

Previous Next

Full log

View this message in rfc822 format

From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
To: Paul Eggert <eggert <at> cs.ucla.edu>
Cc: larsi <at> gnus.org, 49261 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: bug#49261: Segfault during loadup
Date: Wed, 14 Jul 2021 15:36:11 +0300

> Cc: larsi <at> gnus.org, 49261 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
> From: Paul Eggert <eggert <at> cs.ucla.edu>
> Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2021 18:12:00 -0500
> 
> On 7/12/21 10:54 AM, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> > Then what is the -Woverflow option for?  Can you show an example of
> > code which -Woverflow would flag that doesn't produce a bogus warning?
> 
> Sure: the GCC documentation says -Woverflow is supposed to warn about 
> "compile-time overflow in constant expressions". So GCC should (and
> does) warn about this top-level declaration:
> 
> int x = INT_MAX + 1;
> 
> However, there is no overflow here:
> 
> unsigned a = -1, b = INT_MIN, c = LLONG_MAX;

You are saying that there's some fundamental difference between

  INT_MAX + 1

and

  (USE_LSB_TAG ? - (1 << GCTYPEBITS) : VAL_MAX)

?  Or between an expression 'x = FOO' and 'mask = BAR'?  I don't see
any fundamental difference.  IMO, the warning was valid, as the
assignment loses significant bits.

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.