[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Having fun with the following C code (UB)

On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 2:50 PM, Jakub Wilk <jwilk@debian.org> wrote:
> * Mathieu Malaterre <malat@debian.org>, 2014-03-27, 13:06:
>> I preferred not to mass bug everyone out there and instead:
>> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=742780
> But many packages don't regenerate autofoo at build-time. :-(

And your point is ?

It may not impact package built with gcc-4.5, only those that have
been rebuild since gcc-4.6. But anyway the generated code (whether it
is in m4 or in the generated auto* stuff) is bogus since the begining.

>> LFS is still a release goal, not a requirement.
> Then "severity: grave" is probably overkill. :-P

If as an application programmer I cannot get memcpy to copy past the
first 32bits of size_t (x86_64), I would call it a grave issue in

Same thing if I use autoconf macro to tell whether or not my system
support LFS, but it keeps on claiming it does not. I personally call
it a grave issue ... right ?

This is really a regression, package on 32bits arch used to support
LFS, but since gcc 4.6 came it they do not anymore.

Reply to: