Openwall GNU/*/Linux - a small security-enhanced Linux distro for servers
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Mon, 21 May 2012 21:35:59 -0500
From: Richard Pennington <rich@...nware.com>
To: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: A little more progress today with clang/LLVM

On Monday, May 21, 2012 09:59:35 PM Rich Felker wrote:
> On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 08:47:04PM -0500, Richard Pennington wrote:
> > I've decided to keep the musl build scheme with a few minor changes (e.g.
> > replace libgcc.a with libcompiler-rt.a).
> > 
> > I'm now building for i386, arm, and x86_64. I enabled clang warnings
> > -Werror and had to inhibit a few, some of which look like they need some
> > attention. Here's my current list:
> > 
> > -Werror -Qunused-arguments -Wno-unneeded-internal-declaration
> > -Wno-cast-align -Wno-incompatible-pointer-types
> > -Wno-implicit-function-declaration -Wno- string-plus-int
> > -Wno-pointer-sign -Wno-array-bounds
> 
> Aside from unused arguments (a bogus warning IMO) and string plus int
> (why is this a warning?), these sound like they could be issues to
> address. I cleaned up all the pointer signedness warnings (which
> should be errors, per the C language) with gcc, so I'm unsure why
> they're showing up again. Implicit function declarations sound
> particularly bad, but gcc didn't report any to me. The rest are
> *probably* non-issues, but I'd like to check them if you could send
> the warning output to the list.
> 
> > I think that bits/alltypes.h might need some clang specific tweaking.
> 
> Can you elaborate?

There are some differences between what clang thinks should be the parameters 
of well known functions and what your header files say. I'll get you more 
details.

> 
> > I'm going to start looking at the mips, ppc, and microblaze bits now, and
> > will look at warning elimination after.
> 
> I'll be happy to look at it for you. :)
> 
> Rich

I'll send you the list. The only one that looked sort of bad to me was the out 
of bounds array reference. It was on the x86_64 in the pthread_barrier_t 
access. clang complained about referencing __p[4], which is out of bounds. 
That code is a little cryptic to me right now, since I'm a newbi. ;-)

-Rich

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Your e-mail address:

Confused about mailing lists and their use? Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia and check out these guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.