From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 107573 invoked by alias); 29 Jun 2016 15:12:48 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 106637 invoked by uid 89); 29 Jun 2016 15:12:47 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-3.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy= X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES256-GCM-SHA384 encrypted) ESMTPS; Wed, 29 Jun 2016 15:12:34 +0000 Received: from int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.22]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 84BEDC049D5A; Wed, 29 Jun 2016 15:12:33 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.ams2.redhat.com [10.39.146.11]) by int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id u5TFCWUv018145; Wed, 29 Jun 2016 11:12:32 -0400 Subject: Re: [PATCH] Initialize strtok_r's saveptr to NULL To: Manish Goregaokar References: Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org From: Pedro Alves Message-ID: <096d4eba-1f36-1a1c-055e-331353293364@redhat.com> Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2016 15:12:00 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.1.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2016-06/txt/msg00518.txt.bz2 On 06/29/2016 03:42 PM, Manish Goregaokar wrote: > Fixed and pushed. Thanks. Please don't put the "gdb/ChangeLog:" lines in the ChangeLog file though. :-) > > Is this something we can fix in gcc? Pointer overflow is UB IIRC so > + should never be null. Not sure if the > compiler knows that this is positive though. I'd hope so. Was already working on a minimal reproducer. :-) Filed a gcc bug now: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71699 Thanks, Pedro Alves