[vdr] Logs from building VDR 2.1.3 with Clang 3.4.1
Klaus.Schmidinger at tvdr.de
Sat Feb 8 17:02:06 CET 2014
On 08.02.2014 16:10, Tony Houghton wrote:
> On Sat, 08 Feb 2014 15:17:09 +0100
> Klaus Schmidinger <Klaus.Schmidinger at tvdr.de> wrote:
>> On 08.02.2014 14:34, Tony Houghton wrote:
>>> The warning is justified, because if rid is 0 it's still there as an
>>> argument, but just happens to have a value of 0. I think you can make
>>> snprintf "consume" it without printing anything by adding %.d to the
>>> second format string.
>> I'm afraid not.
>> If I run
>> #include <stdio.h>
>> int main(void)
>> for (int n = 0; n < 2; n++)
>> printf(n ? "'%d-%d'\n" : "'%d%.d'\n", 1, 2);
>> return 0;
>> I get
>> But maybe there *is* such a format character, it just isn't "%.d".
> You're right, it looks like it has to be %.s, it doesn't work with %.d.
> If you used %.s you'd probably just get a type mismatch warning instead
> :-(. There's nothing wrong with the way you wrote it, but I like to
> enable all possible warnings and eliminate them. In this case I think
> I'd just print the rid even if it's 0.
The thing is that I'd rather get rid of the RID altogether at some point,
so I wouldn't want to manifest it by printing it if it is 0 ;-).
>>>> Can you suggest a different way of causing a segfault at this point?
>>> You could add volatile as the warning suggests. Is there a good reason
>>> not to use abort() instead?
>> The idea behind this was to allow for easy backtracking in such a case.
>> I believe abort() wouldn't allow this, would it?
> abort() does usually generate a useful core dump/stack backtrace IME.
You're right, I've changed it.
More information about the vdr