Re: strstr.c:105:3: error: ‘for’ loop initial de clarations are only allowed in C99 or C11 mode

Giacomo Tesio <[email protected]>
Newsgroups gmane.comp.lib.newlib
Message-ID <CAHL7psHH42Z_bfL0jT7AJ_mbYcxOfwiOoLdZSoZZRc5_HUwLVg@mail.gmail.com>
Orlando, I have no issue if newlib decide to require -std=c99 but I
think the build scripts should impose it, without affecting each
single port. Otherwise the shared code should not require C99: using
C99 would be an option, but not mandatory.

As for the UB, I didn't think about it, I just fixed the compilation
error preserving everything else unchanged.


Giacomo

On 13/08/2019, Corinna Vinschen <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Aug 12 20:18, Orlando Arias wrote:
>> On 8/12/19 8:05 PM, Howland, Craig D. - US via newlib wrote:
>> [snip]
>> >>        for (int i = 0; i < ne_len; i++)
>> >>        ^
>> [snip]
>> >
>> >
>> >      A quick fix for you is to do what the error message suggests:  add
>> > -std=gnu99 to CFLAGS before you configure Newlib, to have that as a
>> > default compiler flag when it is built.
>> >     This is probably also the best solution for the real fix in Newlib.
>> > There are other cases of C99 constructs being used, anyway.  (It has
>> > been 20 years.  Seems totally reasonable to require it.)
>> >                 Craig
>> >
>>
>> Greetings,
>>
>> There is still a lingering bug in the code above, and the proposed patch
>> in [1]. It will trigger undefined behavior due to the comparison of a
>> signed type and an unsigned type. If the value of ne_len or similar is
>> over INT_MAX, the comparison will always fail and cause an integer
>> overflow, resulting in undefined behavior [signed overflow is UB per C
>> standard]. The datatype that should be used in these iterations is
>> size_t. I do agree however that requiring C99 or newer to compile newlib
>> should be a thing.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Orlando.
>>
>> [1] https://sourceware.org/ml/newlib/2019/msg00469.html
>>
>
> I don't see any such patch in there fixing the undefined behaviour
> you're talking about:
>
> @@ -142,6 +145,7 @@ strstr (const char *haystack, const char *needle)
>  {
>    const unsigned char *hs = (const unsigned char *) haystack;
>    const unsigned char *ne = (const unsigned char *) needle;
> +  int i;
>
>    /* Handle short needle special cases first.  */
>    if (ne[0] == '\0')
> @@ -170,7 +174,7 @@ strstr (const char *haystack, const char *needle)
>
>        /* Initialize bad character shift hash table.  */
>        memset (shift, ne_len + 1, sizeof (shift));
> -      for (int i = 0; i < ne_len; i++)
> +      for (i = 0; i < ne_len; i++)
>  	shift[ne[i] % sizeof (shift)] = ne_len - i;
>
>        do
>
> These two hunks are just the pre-C99 drop-in replacement.
> Also:
>
>     if (__builtin_expect (ne_len < 255, 1))
>       [...]
>
> So ne_len is guaranteed to be < 255 in this code snippet.  Am I missing
> something?
>
>
> Corinna
>
> --
> Corinna Vinschen
> Cygwin Maintainer
> Red Hat
>
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.