| 1 |
On Wednesday, September 29, 2010 00:35:45 Ryan Hill wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Tue, 28 Sep 2010 22:25:38 -0400 Mike Frysinger wrote: |
| 3 |
> > > Something I forgot to ask before: are the 'always overflow' warnings |
| 4 |
> > > new w/ GCC 4.5 / glibc 2.12? If they're new w/ 4.5 then we don't have |
| 5 |
> > > a problem. |
| 6 |
> > |
| 7 |
> > the fortify warnings typically come from glibc, not gcc. i dont believe |
| 8 |
> > many of these warnings are new. the portage update i posted was because |
| 9 |
> > i was reviewing a specific package, noticed a worrisome warning (and |
| 10 |
> > fixed it), and then proceeded to data mine the last years worth of build |
| 11 |
> > logs on my system for gcc warnings. |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> Okay, I noticed that some of these bugs are only happening with 4.5 (eg. |
| 14 |
> 337020) so I thought it might have been expanded to catch more cases or |
| 15 |
> something. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
it might be a cumulative effect -- better constant propagation in gcc allows |
| 18 |
updated glibc fortify checks to catch more naughty code. you can see in this |
| 19 |
bug the warning is coming via checks in the glibc headers. but i'd have to |
| 20 |
sit down with different gcc/glibc versions and do some fiddlin' to give a less |
| 21 |
vague answer. |
| 22 |
-mike |
Archives