From owner-freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.ORG  Tue Mar 13 16:22:04 2007
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.ORG>
X-Original-To: freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.ORG
Delivered-To: freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.ORG
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DAB6B16A40B;
	Tue, 13 Mar 2007 16:22:04 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from rnsanchez@wait4.org)
Received: from spunkymail-a11.g.dreamhost.com
	(sd-green-bigip-207.dreamhost.com [208.97.132.207])
	by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A7FC113C4C8;
	Tue, 13 Mar 2007 16:22:04 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from rnsanchez@wait4.org)
Received: from sauron.lan.box (unknown [200.180.163.93])
	by spunkymail-a11.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6E949B7098;
	Tue, 13 Mar 2007 09:22:01 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2007 13:21:58 -0300
From: Ricardo Nabinger Sanchez <rnsanchez@wait4.org>
To: Maxime Henrion <mux@FreeBSD.org>
Message-Id: <20070313132158.7368d186.rnsanchez@wait4.org>
In-Reply-To: <20070313140632.GK65356@elvis.mu.org>
References: <20070313121106.GA96293@nagual.pp.ru>
	<20070313101312.71d35c32.rnsanchez@wait4.org>
	<20070313140632.GK65356@elvis.mu.org>
Organization: SYS_WAIT4
X-Mailer: Sylpheed 2.4.0beta4 (GTK+ 2.10.9; i386-unknown-freebsd6.1)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.ORG, freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject: Re: Bad gcc -O optimization cause core dump. What to do?
X-BeenThere: freebsd-bugs@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Bug reports <freebsd-bugs.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-bugs>,
	<mailto:freebsd-bugs-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-bugs>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-bugs@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-bugs-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-bugs>,
	<mailto:freebsd-bugs-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2007 16:22:05 -0000

On Tue, 13 Mar 2007 15:06:32 +0100
Maxime Henrion <mux@FreeBSD.org> wrote:

> > Given that this is not what the user asked (replacing printf with puts), I
> > consider this a bug.  GCC made its assumption, and it was incorrect--it's
> > not user's fault.
> 
> GCC can do whatever it wants here, even printing "foobar42", because the
> C standard says that passing a NULL pointer to a %s format will yield
> undefined behaviour.  It *is* user's fault to have passed NULL to
> printf() in the first place.
> 
> So, while we could argue that GCC's behaviour here is useless, annoying,
> etc, this just can't be called a bug in GCC.  As a side note, these
> "optimizations" are in place since a *long* time now.

... Considered until now.  :)

Honestly, I wasn't aware of these specific issues (detail in the C standard +
gcc builtin printf optimization), and that's surely _my_ fault, not gcc's.

Sorry for the (useless) noise.  Thank you (and DES) for pointing this out.

-- 
Ricardo Nabinger Sanchez     <rnsanchez@{gmail.com,wait4.org}>
Powered by FreeBSD

  "Left to themselves, things tend to go from bad to worse."