right now. new address-of-packed-member and format-overflow
warnings have new GCC_NO_ADDR_OF_PACKED_MEMBER amd
GCC_NO_FORMAT_OVERFLOW variables to remove these warnings.
apply to a bunch of the tree. mostly, these are real bugs that
should be fixed, but in many cases, only by removing the 'packed'
attribute from some structure that doesn't really need it. (i
looked at many different ones, and while perhaps 60-80% were
already properly aligned, it wasn't clear to me that the uses
were always coming from sane data vs network alignment, so it
doesn't seem safe to remove packed without careful research for
each affect struct.) clang already warned (and was not erroring)
for many of these cases, but gcc picked up dozens more.
stored internal or not. Also make a note that the datablocks predictor takes
NO extended attributes stored in the node into account
In rare cases it could lead to confusion where the predictor would say it
wouldn't fit internally when it could just have fitted. This would trigger the
assertion. Now it will on rare accasions create a datablock even though it
might have fitted.
GCC_NO_FORMAT_TRUNCATION -Wno-format-truncation (GCC 7/8)
GCC_NO_STRINGOP_TRUNCATION -Wno-stringop-truncation (GCC 8)
GCC_NO_STRINGOP_OVERFLOW -Wno-stringop-overflow (GCC 8)
GCC_NO_CAST_FUNCTION_TYPE -Wno-cast-function-type (GCC 8)
use these to turn off warnings for most GCC-8 complaints. many
of these are false positives, most of the real bugs are already
commited, or are yet to come.
we plan to introduce versions of (some?) of these that use the
"-Wno-error=" form, which still displays the warnings but does
not make it an error, and all of the above will be re-considered
as either being "fix me" (warning still displayed) or "warning
is wrong."
These functions are defined on unsigned int. The generic name
min/max should not silently truncate to 32 bits on 64-bit systems.
This is purely a name change -- no functional change intended.
HOWEVER! Some subsystems have
#define min(a, b) ((a) < (b) ? (a) : (b))
#define max(a, b) ((a) > (b) ? (a) : (b))
even though our standard name for that is MIN/MAX. Although these
may invite multiple evaluation bugs, these do _not_ cause integer
truncation.
To avoid `fixing' these cases, I first changed the name in libkern,
and then compile-tested every file where min/max occurred in order to
confirm that it failed -- and thus confirm that nothing shadowed
min/max -- before changing it.
I have left a handful of bootloaders that are too annoying to
compile-test, and some dead code:
cobalt ews4800mips hp300 hppa ia64 luna68k vax
acorn32/if_ie.c (not included in any kernels)
macppc/if_gm.c (superseded by gem(4))
It should be easy to fix the fallout once identified -- this way of
doing things fails safe, and the goal here, after all, is to _avoid_
silent integer truncations, not introduce them.
Maybe one day we can reintroduce min/max as type-generic things that
never silently truncate. But we should avoid doing that for a while,
so that existing code has a chance to be detected by the compiler for
conversion to uimin/uimax without changing the semantics until we can
properly audit it all. (Who knows, maybe in some cases integer
truncation is actually intended!)
makefs(8) emulates UFS2 in performing lazy initialization of inode
blocks when allocating and writing inodes. However, it only ever
initializes one inode block at a time, which may be insufficient.
If so, a later initialization may clobber an inode, resulting in
an inconsistent filesystem.
I committed a minimal fix for the problem to FreeBSD:
https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/base/326912
