RFC: Fix powerpc64 build with GCC 5.0
Adhemerval Zanella
azanella@linux.vnet.ibm.com
Thu Jan 1 19:47:00 GMT 2015
On 31-12-2014 17:01, Adhemerval Zanella wrote:
> On 30-12-2014 18:46, Joseph Myers wrote:
>> On Tue, 30 Dec 2014, Adhemerval Zanella wrote:
>>
>>> And this comes from sysdep.h:
>>>
>>> if (__builtin_classify_type (__arg3) != 5 && sizeof (__arg3) > 8) \
>>> __illegally_sized_syscall_arg3 (); \
>>>
>>> My understanding is since we already testing if argument is a 'pointer_type_class'
>>> (__builtin_classify_type equal to 5), thus the sizeof test is superfluous. Would be
>>> a correct fix to just remove these tests? Thoughts?
>> I don't think either test is superfluous.
>>
>> The point of checking __builtin_classify_type is to avoid errors on string
>> literal arguments, where sizeof inhibits array-to-pointer conversion (but
>> __builtin_classify_type doesn't, so string literals count as pointers for
>> __builtin_classify_type).
>>
>> If __builtin_classify_type (__arg3) != 5, that means the argument - after
>> array-to-pointer conversion - is *not* a pointer. Pointers would never
>> satisfy sizeof (__arg3) > 8, but non-pointers might (e.g. structures) and
>> in that case would be invalid syscall arguments.
>>
>> Assuming we want this checking at all (and if anything, my inclination
>> would be that it should go in some sort of generic __check_syscall_arg
>> macros in generic sysdeps/unix files, not be architecture-specific), my
>> inclination would be to insert an explicit cast to (const struct timespec
>> *) in utimensat.c, with a comment to explain why it's there.
>>
> I see what I overlook then and I will prepare a patch using casts to cleanup
> powerpc build. Thanks!
>
Using a new gcc trunk revision (219136) I am not seeing it anymore.
More information about the Libc-alpha
mailing list