From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 6793 invoked by alias); 30 May 2011 18:59:53 -0000 Received: (qmail 6782 invoked by uid 22791); 30 May 2011 18:59:52 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from rock.gnat.com (HELO rock.gnat.com) (205.232.38.15) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Mon, 30 May 2011 18:59:37 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9645C2BAF2A; Mon, 30 May 2011 14:59:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: from rock.gnat.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (rock.gnat.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id EjvrG8xBaFh8; Mon, 30 May 2011 14:59:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 683A12BAF05; Mon, 30 May 2011 14:59:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id BA31A145615; Mon, 30 May 2011 11:59:33 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 30 May 2011 18:59:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Jan Kratochvil Cc: GDB Administrator , gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: New ARI warning Sat May 28 01:53:47 UTC 2011 Message-ID: <20110530185933.GD2620@adacore.com> References: <20110528015347.GA10123@sourceware.org> <20110530183455.GA26393@host1.jankratochvil.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20110530183455.GA26393@host1.jankratochvil.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) 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 X-SW-Source: 2011-05/txt/msg00686.txt.bz2 > This is by me: > char buffer[MAXPATHLEN]; > sprintf (buffer, "/proc/%ld/status", lwp); > > I find the code perfectly correct, as I was told the ARI checks are only > differential I hope it can be kept as is. I reached a similar conclusion when I looked at it this morning. We could make the code marginally better in the sense that we'd remove the static buffer, but at the cost of making the code a little more convoluted (once we malloc, we need to make sure we always free, which probably means a cleanup, etc). So I also vote for leaving the code as is. That lead me to consider the removal of this rule. But in the end, I think it's useful to be reminded every time we use sprintf that there is xtrsprintf. Since this hasn't produced too many false positives, I think it's OK to keep it for now. In the meantime, I think there is a way to say that this line is OK. If you put /* ARI: sprintf */ on the sprintf line, that should take care of the warning... -- Joel