Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2015 01:21:40 -0500 From: Scott Long <scottl@samsco.org> To: Ed Maste <emaste@freebsd.org> Cc: FreeBSD Current <freebsd-current@freebsd.org>, Steven Hartland <killing@multiplay.co.uk> Subject: Re: asr(4) error with new clang/llvm Message-ID: <63EDB2D2-4545-4FE3-85BD-4ED2321BA3C7@samsco.org> In-Reply-To: <CAPyFy2CHYiss=OtaeS2MJxqfHz_2fF5MNnQuQFc-rK1cB0Wt%2Bw@mail.gmail.com> References: <CEA82F51-9D88-4F20-A649-78AE7E5309AA@lists.zabbadoz.net> <54A61AFD.3040507@multiplay.co.uk> <CAPyFy2CHYiss=OtaeS2MJxqfHz_2fF5MNnQuQFc-rK1cB0Wt%2Bw@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> On Jan 2, 2015, at 12:00 AM, Ed Maste <emaste@freebsd.org> wrote: >=20 > On 1 January 2015 at 23:13, Steven Hartland <killing@multiplay.co.uk> = wrote: >>=20 >> On 02/01/2015 01:23, Bjoern A. Zeeb wrote: >>>=20 >>> Hi, >>>=20 >>> you need the next line of source to see that while the union only = defines >>> Simple[1], the comparison goes up to SG_LIST (or something) which is = indeed >>> defined as 58. Cn someone fix this? This makes i386 compiles = failing >>> currently. >>>=20 >>> = /scratch/tmp/bz/head.svn/sys/modules/asr/../../dev/asr/asr.c:1849:29: >>> error: array index 58 is past the end of the array (which contains 1 >>> element) [-Werror,-Warray-bounds] >>> while ((len > 0) && (sg < = &((PPRIVATE_SCSI_SCB_EXECUTE_MESSAGE) >>> ^ >>> /scratch/tmp/bz/head.svn/sys/dev/asr/i2omsg.h:934:8: note: array = 'Simple' >>> declared here >>> I2O_SGE_SIMPLE_ELEMENT Simple[1]; >>> ^ >>=20 >> If that's wrong it looks like there's also a number of calls to the = macro >> SG(SGL,Index,Flags,Buffer,Size) which are also wrong as Index is = used in >> the same way: >> &(((PI2O_SG_ELEMENT)(SGL))->u.Simple[Index] >>=20 >> There appears to be two calls to SG where Index is 1. >>=20 >> I'm afraid I have no idea what the fix would be as the entire driver = is very >> voodoo like to me :( >=20 > It's a variable length array in a struct / union. Other than being > confusing and now triggering a warning after the clang update it > should be fine. >=20 > Most likely we need to build asr with -Werror disabled for that > warning, perhaps -Wno-error-array-bounds. I'll take a look tomorrow > morning if nobody else gets to it first. >=20 I got to it first ;-) Scott
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?63EDB2D2-4545-4FE3-85BD-4ED2321BA3C7>