Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2004 14:59:07 +0530 From: Harish Mohanan <hmohanan@sco.com> To: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Dag-Erling_Sm=F8rgrav?= <des@des.no> Cc: hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: how to fool gcc? Message-ID: <4028A463.4090001@sco.com> In-Reply-To: <xzpad3r5mj4.fsf@dwp.des.no> References: <xzpad3r5mj4.fsf@dwp.des.no>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
try compiling without optimisation i.e. without the -O flag to gcc.
Harish
Dag-Erling Smørgrav wrote:
>I'm having trouble with some uncommitted OpenPAM patches that I'd like
>to get into the tree. The problem actually doesn't occur with a
>normal build, but it prevents me from building a debugging version of
>libpam.
>
>Part of the patch declares openpam_log(3) as printf-like so gcc can
>check format strings etc. However, openpam_log(3) is also used in
>debugging macros such as this:
>
>#define RETURNS(s) do { \
> if ((s) == NULL) \
> openpam_log(PAM_LOG_DEBUG, "returning NULL"); \
> else \
> openpam_log(PAM_LOG_DEBUG, "returning '%s'", (s)); \
> return (s); \
>} while (0)
>
>The problem is that when it encounters RETURNS(NULL), gcc complains
>that I'm passing a NULL argument to printf(3), even though it should
>be obvious that I'm not:
>
>cc -O -pipe -march=pentium2 -I/usr/src/lib/libpam/libpam -I/home/des/projects/openpam/include -DLIB_MAJ=2 -g -DDEBUG -Wsystem-headers -Werror -Wall -Wno-format-y2k -W -Wstrict-prototypes -Wmissing-prototypes -Wpointer-arith -Wreturn-type -Wcast-qual -Wwrite-strings -Wswitch -Wshadow -Wcast-align -Wbad-function-cast -Wchar-subscripts -Winline -Wnested-externs -Wredundant-decls -c /home/des/projects/openpam/lib/openpam_get_option.c
>/home/des/projects/openpam/lib/openpam_get_option.c: In function `openpam_get_option':
>/home/des/projects/openpam/lib/openpam_get_option.c:62: warning: reading through null pointer (arg 4)
>/home/des/projects/openpam/lib/openpam_get_option.c:73: warning: reading through null pointer (arg 4)
>*** Error code 1
>
>Stop in /usr/src/lib/libpam/libpam.
>
>I've tried various twists to fool gcc, such as casting (s) to (const
>char *) and adding 0 to it hoping that the addition would defeat its
>NULL pointer check. Nothing I've tried works, though, and I would
>really hate to have to lower the WANRS level just for this.
>
>Any suggestions?
>
>DES
>
>
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4028A463.4090001>