similar to: Non-standard C++ usage

On 2019-11-27, Damien Miller <djm at mindrot.org> wrote: > applied, thanks. Surprised the fairly aggressive set of -W flags we use > by default didn't catch this... This can be caught with -Wpedantic, which seems to catch a few more instances of this, as well as passing non-void pointers to printf for the `%p` format specifier. Patches attached for these. However, it also catches

# Summary Currently the Sanitizer family of runtime bug finding tools (e.g. Address Sanitizer) provide useful reports of problems upon detection. This RFC proposes adding tools to 1. Parse Sanitizer reports into structured data to make interfacing with other tools simpler. 2. Take the Sanitizer reports and “Symbolicate” them. That is, add missing symbol information (function name, source file,

Hi, On Tue, 6 Oct 2020 at 18:31, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > > My 2c would be to push back a bit more on the "let's not have a machine readable format, but instead parse the human readable format" - it seems like that's going to make the human readable format/parsing fairly brittle/hard to change (I mean, having the parser in tree will help, for

I've recently updated the coxme package, which calls internal routines from the bdsmatrix package.? (It is in fact mentioned as an example of this in the Extensions manual.) The call connections are a blocks like this, one for each of the 9 called C routines. void bdsmatrix_prod4(int nrow,??? int nblock,?? int *bsize, ??????????????????? double *bmat, double *rmat, ??????????????????? int

Hello everyone. I've noticed the difference in gcc and llvm behaviour with the following code: $ cat test.c #include <stdio.h> int main() { for(int i = 0;; ({break;})) printf("Hello, world\n"); } $ clang test.c -pedantic && ./a.out test.c:5:22: warning: use of GNU statement expression extension [-Wgnu] for(int i = 0;; ({break;}))

ninja all check-xray [0/981] Building libLLVMTableGen for native TableGen... ninja: no work to do. [673/979] Linking CXX shared library lib/liblldCommon.so.6.0.0svn FAILED: lib/liblldCommon.so.6.0.0svn : && /usr/bin/clang++-3.9 -fPIC -Wpedantic -fPIC -fvisibility-inlines-hidden -Werror=date-time -std=c++11 -Wall -W -Wno-unused-parameter -Wwrite-strings -Wcast-qual

> On 4 Oct 2017, at 04:43, Chris Bieneman <beanz at apple.com> wrote: > > I want to make sure I understand the problem so I can try to reproduce it. > > When you say "make changes to the runtime" you mean code in compiler-rt/lib/xray ? > Yes. > Are you using the mono-repo prototype? If not, where do you have compiler-rt's sources (llvm/projects or

And remove the cast on the return value of R_GETCCallable. And check that your function is found before using it. #include <R.h> #include <Rinternals.h> #include <R_ext/Rdynload.h> void bdsmatrix_prod4(int nrow, int nblock, int *bsize, double *bmat, double *rmat, int nfrail, double *y) { DL_FUNC fun = NULL; if (fun==NULL)

This is not valid in ISO C. --- ssh-sk.c | 4 ++-- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/ssh-sk.c b/ssh-sk.c index 2b25c42f..3d6ac3d0 100644 --- a/ssh-sk.c +++ b/ssh-sk.c @@ -153,7 +153,7 @@ sshsk_free_enroll_response(struct sk_enroll_response *r) freezero(r->signature, r->signature_len); freezero(r->attestation_cert, r->attestation_cert_len); freezero(r,

Try as I might I can't seem to get LLVM to bulid using clang/clang++. No matter what I do it insists on using /usr/bin/cc and /usr/bin/c++ which are gcc. Am I missing something obvious? I vaguely remember some document describing a stage1 compiler built by your old toolchain and a stage2 compiler but I can't find the steps to do that any more. $ CC=/usr/local/bin/clang

Ah ha! I found crash reports: green-dragon-03:DiagnosticReports buildslave$ cat mmap_stress.cc.tmp_2016-01-19-231335_green-dragon-03.crash Process: mmap_stress.cc.tmp [95010] Path: /Users/USER/*/mmap_stress.cc.tmp Identifier: mmap_stress.cc.tmp Version: 0 Code Type: X86-64 (Native) Parent Process: bash [95004] User ID:

--- images/README | 14 ++++++++++++ images/mkzero/Makefile | 9 ++++++++ images/mkzero/mkzero.c | 59 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ images/special | Bin 0 -> 8192 bytes 4 files changed, 82 insertions(+) create mode 100644 images/mkzero/Makefile create mode 100644 images/mkzero/mkzero.c create mode 100644 images/special diff --git a/images/README

Try changing static void (*fun)() = NULL; to DL_FUNC fun = NULL; Bill Dunlap TIBCO Software wdunlap tibco.com On Fri, Dec 29, 2017 at 5:14 AM, Therneau, Terry M., Ph.D. < therneau at mayo.edu> wrote: > I've recently updated the coxme package, which calls internal routines > from the bdsmatrix package. (It is in fact mentioned as an example of this > in the Extensions

You can legally cast a function pointer to another function pointer, where the signatures differ. (It is not legal to cast between data and function pointers.) I would make typedefs for the various signatures, as the casting syntax is more readable then. Bill Dunlap TIBCO Software wdunlap tibco.com On Fri, Dec 29, 2017 at 10:13 AM, Therneau, Terry M., Ph.D. < therneau at mayo.edu> wrote:

Hi llvm-dev, I have unit tests set up in the XRay implementation (compiler-rt/lib/xray/tests/unit) following the pattern that the TSAN and other sanitiser unit tests. However, I'm running into the following problem: When I make changes to the runtime (in this case, XRay) and do `ninja all check-xray`, it seems that the unit tests don't get re-liked to the new version of the runtime. It

+ cfe-dev > On Mar 28, 2016, at 1:23 PM, Harlan Haskins via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > Hi all, > > Recently I’ve noticed in coverage profiles that llvm_unreachable and the like are considered uncovered because there’s no special behavior in instrumentation to ‘ignore’ noreturn paths. FWIW, Daniel Dunbar and a few others have brought up the lack of a

> On Jul 1, 2016, at 12:10 PM, Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov at google.com> wrote: > > On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 8:53 PM, Anna Zaks <ganna at apple.com> wrote: >> Hi Sanitizer Runtime Developers, >> >> We recently ran into a problem building clang because some of the >> definitions in sanitizer_common conflicted with system definitions and later >>

Hi all, Recently I’ve noticed in coverage profiles that llvm_unreachable and the like are considered uncovered because there’s no special behavior in instrumentation to ‘ignore’ noreturn paths. While I don’t necessarily think it’s ideal to ignore all noreturn decls, I think there’s definitely room for some heuristics around ignoring things like llvm_unreachable (perhaps opt-in?). I’m

On Sat, Jan 11, 2014 at 12:12:46AM +0100, Hilko Bengen wrote: > --- > images/README | 14 ++++++++++++ > images/mkzero/Makefile | 9 ++++++++ > images/mkzero/mkzero.c | 59 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > images/special | Bin 0 -> 8192 bytes > 4 files changed, 82 insertions(+) > create mode 100644 images/mkzero/Makefile >

Hi Hilko, Thanks a lot for creating this test hive! I think another thing that will trip up Registry programs is value names that include back slashes. For example, under the System hive, the key "\MountedDevices" has child values with names like "\DosDevices\C:" (the leading backslash is a part of the value name). There are many other values that include backslashes. I