subversion-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Daniel Shahaf <>
Subject Re: Review of sizeof usage
Date Thu, 13 Aug 2015 23:25:17 GMT
Branko Čibej wrote on Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 10:07:49 +0200:
> On 12.08.2015 00:31, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> >
> >>> We have had problems with both styles in the past, so neither is immune
> >>> to bugs.  I prefer the explicit type as it is easier to grep.
> >> The explicit type form is more accident-prone than the variable form
> >> because any change requires two modifications in the same statement
> >> instead of one.
> > Why doesn't the compiler or buildbot catch accidents?
> I can't imagine a way for the compiler to emit warnings for such
> constructs without getting a far too large percentage of false
> positives. It's perfectly valid, and in many cases required by some
> object-like architecture, to allocate a buffer that has a different size
> than the one implied by the pointer that stores the return value. This
> is C, after all.

Okay, so from the compiler authors' perspective, "allocation size mismatches
pointed-to-object size" warnings should not be on by default.  Fair enough.
But from our perspective as Subversion maintainers, we never *intentionally*
allocate a buffer smaller than the pointed-to object, so the warnings would be
useful to us.  We should therefore opt-in to them.

(via compiler flags, or have buildbot run static analysis, or…)



> -- Brane

View raw message