Le dimanche 19 février 2017 à 11:57 +0100, Michael Scherer a écrit : > Hi, > > so I was reading coverty scan reports (as Nigel tricked me into looking > them), and one of the first is this: > https://download.gluster.org/pub/gluster/glusterfs/static-analysis/master/glusterfs-coverity/2017-02-07-3c86d946/html/1/8rpc-transport.c.html#error > > at first, i was wondering why/what is the issue. > > But, after searching, int8_t is a C99 type, which is signed when > compiled on C99 compiler, and likely unsigned when compiled using a non > C99 compiler (as I see in ./contrib/argp-standalone/acinclude.m4 , it > will be defined to "char" on non c99 platform, which also make no > garantee on being signed or unsigned, according to > https://stackoverflow.com/questions/4337217/difference-between-signed-unsigned-char ). > > So, to fix that, should we force to use c99, or update argp-standalone ? > > (and if we do requires c99 already, how come coverty do not use it ?) So it turn out this did bugged me, and I just choose the joker "ask to a friend", who told me the trick with that specific error: https://review.gluster.org/#/c/16738/ (in short, using int8_t instead of int mean there is a possible truncation since strcmp can return 256, which become 0 once converted) So there is no C99 migration or anything needed. -- Michael Scherer Sysadmin, Community Infrastructure and Platform, OSAS
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ Gluster-devel mailing list Gluster-devel@xxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel
