This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: [PATCH] vfprintf: Remove alloca from string formatting with conversion
On 28/06/2017 16:28, Florian Weimer wrote:
> On 06/28/2017 08:46 PM, Adhemerval Zanella wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 28/06/2017 15:13, Florian Weimer wrote:
>>> On 06/27/2017 10:32 PM, Adhemerval Zanella wrote:
>>>
>>>> Wouldn't be better to add a wrapper on malloc/malloc-internal for overflow
>>>> check? Something like
>>>>
>>>> static inline bool
>>>> check_add_overflow_int_t (int left, int right, int *result)
>>>> {
>>>> #if __GNUC__ >= 5
>>>> return __builtin_add_overflow (left, right, result);
>>>> #else
>>>> if (INT_MAX - left <= right)
>>>> return true;
>>>> *result = left + right;
>>>> return false;
>>>> #endif
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> As we already do for multiplication and for unsigned (from my char_array)?
>>>
>>> I'd prefer to wait until we can require GCC 5 as the baseline compiler
>>> and then use the built-ins directly. Less cognitive load for the
>>> maintainers.
>>
>> This would take at least one or two more releases and I do not see why
>> add and follow an idea already in place for malloc.
>
> GCC 4.9 is already out of support upstream, so I expect we will switch
> to GCC 5 during the next cycle.
Right, but it does not prevent up from adding a wrapper for current minimum
GCC supported (and it add overflow wrapper could be used not only in
this specific patch).
>
>>>>> + /* Use a small buffer to combine processing of multiple characters.
>>>>> + CONVERT_FROM_OTHER_STRING expects the buffer size in (wide)
>>>>> + characters, and buf_length counts that. */
>>>>> +#ifdef COMPILE_WPRINTF
>>>>> + enum { buf_length = 64 };
>>>>> + wchar_t buf[buf_length];
>>>>> +#else
>>>>> + enum { buf_length = 256 };
>>>>> + char buf[buf_length];
>>>>> + _Static_assert (sizeof (buf) > MB_LEN_MAX,
>>>>> + "buffer is large enough for a single multi-byte character");
>>>>> +#endif
>>>>
>>>> Why different 'buf_length' sizes if you using the required type for array
>>>> creation?
>>>
>>> I don't understand the question. I want to avoid a large stack frame.
>>> Regarding the different constants, see the comment above.
>>
>> If the buffer must be computed as wide characters, why not defined it
>> using wchar_t regardless:
>>
>> wchar_t wbuf[64];
>> const size_t buf_length = sizeof (wbuf) / sizeof (CHAR_T);
>>
>> ?
>
> Well, it would have to be like this:
>
> enum { buf_length = 256 / sizeof (CHAR_T) };
> CHAR_T buf[buf_length];
>
> I think this should work.
>
> (I've already posted a test which adds coverage for this code and would
> check that in first.)
Right, I forgot about the type requirement.