From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 7057 invoked by alias); 18 Sep 2009 05:01:47 -0000 Received: (qmail 6820 invoked by uid 22791); 18 Sep 2009 05:01:46 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mout3.freenet.de (HELO mout3.freenet.de) (195.4.92.93) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Fri, 18 Sep 2009 05:01:41 +0000 Received: from [195.4.92.20] (helo=10.mx.freenet.de) by mout3.freenet.de with esmtpa (ID ralf.corsepius@freenet.de) (port 25) (Exim 4.69 #92) id 1MoVbE-0006A0-TP; Fri, 18 Sep 2009 07:01:36 +0200 Received: from hsi-kbw-078-043-127-065.hsi4.kabel-badenwuerttemberg.de ([78.43.127.65]:61023 helo=[192.168.1.104]) by 10.mx.freenet.de with esmtpsa (ID ralf.corsepius@freenet.de) (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (port 465) (Exim 4.69 #94) id 1MoVbE-0000y9-QW; Fri, 18 Sep 2009 07:01:36 +0200 Message-ID: <4AB3142E.70708@rtems.org> Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2009 05:01:00 -0000 From: Ralf Corsepius User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.1.1) Gecko/20090814 Fedora/3.0-2.6.b3.fc11 Thunderbird/3.0b3 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jan Kratochvil CC: Ralf Corsepius , "gdb-patches@sourceware.org" , Joel Sherrill Subject: Re: sparc-tdep.c: __builtin___memcpy_chk overflows destination buffer References: <4AB1A090.8030701@rtems.org> <20090917180452.GA2163@host0.dyn.jankratochvil.net> In-Reply-To: <20090917180452.GA2163@host0.dyn.jankratochvil.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes 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: 2009-09/txt/msg00578.txt.bz2 On 09/17/2009 08:04 PM, Jan Kratochvil wrote: > Hi Ralf, > > I think this is more a GCC fault: > [4.3/4.4/4.5 regression] Bogus __builtin___memcpy_chk overflow warning > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37060 I am inclined to agree, because this matches with what I observe: This warning shows on fedora-10-x86_64 (gcc-4.3.2), fedora-11-x86_64 (gcc-4.4.1), fedora-12-x86_64/rawhide (gcc-4.4.1), openSUSE-11.0-x86_64 (gcc-4.3), openSUSE-11.1-x86_64 (gcc-4.3). I does not show on openSUSE-10.3-x86_64 (gcc-4.2), centos-5-x86_64 (gcc-4.1.2) and the i[356]86 variants of these OSes. Anyway, using "size_t" instead of "int" suppresses the warning on all of them :-) Ralf