Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 19 Oct 2010 17:03:04 +0800 | From | Américo Wang <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] [PERF] (Userspace Tools) Fix a compilation error with -fstack-protector and -Werror |
| |
On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 08:40:00AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > >* Brian Gitonga Marete <marete@toshnix.com> wrote: > >> On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 2:38 AM, Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com> wrote: >> > On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 02:24:00AM +0300, Brian Gitonga Marete wrote: >> >> The following patch fixes compilation of the perf user-space tools on, >> >> for example, gcc version 4.3.3 (Ubuntu 4.3.3-5ubuntu4) . It should not >> >> break anything else. >> > >> > >> > >> > Hi, >> > >> > What kind of warning have you encountered and why it fixes it? >> > Can you describe that in your changelog? >> > >> >> Hello Frederic, >> >> Some versions of gcc, e.g. gcc version 4.3.3 (Ubuntu 4.3.3-5ubuntu4), have the >> (default) minimum size of buffers protected by `-fstack-protector' set to 8. But >> in perf, there exist much smaller automatic buffers. > >Hm, it's this code: > > /* newtWinChoice should really be accepting const char pointers... */ > char yes[] = "Yes", no[] = "No"; > return newtWinChoice(NULL, yes, no, (char *)msg) == 1; > >I.e. the code is messy and GCC is right to warn about it. Hence it would be somewhat >bad to actually remove the warning that pointed out some dodgy piece of code.
Agreed.
> >Even if marking it const doesnt work due to the external libnewt API, we could at >least put 'yes' and 'no' into file scope and mark them static? >
How about making ui__dialog_yesno() a macro? ;) Like:
#define ui__dialog_yesno(msg) \ ({newWinChoice(NULL, "Yes", "No", (char *)(msg)) == 1;})
| |