Greg Schafer wrote:
> Size of 1 seems to work. Size of 1000 doesn't. Using asprintf also
> seems to not crash with a size of 100.
OK, then the bug is in gnulib's tests, not in glibc. Thanks for these tests.
I'm applying this:
2007-09-16 Bruno Haible <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* m4/printf
Bruno Haible wrote:
> It could be that the buffer that is too small is this 'buf' here, not
> something in glibc. Does the buffer overflow persist if you increase
> its size from 100 to 100, and/or if you use asprintf instead of sprintf?
Size of 1 seems to work. Size of 1000 doesn't. Usin
Greg Schafer wrote:
> Posting here for review first:
Thanks.
> $ cat foo.c
> #include
>
> static char buf[100];
> int main ()
> {
> # define LDBL80_WORDS(exponent,manthi,mantlo) { mantlo, manthi,
> exponent }
> { /* Pseudo-Infinity. */
> static union { unsigned int word[4]; long d
Bruno Haible wrote:
> This configure test and how glibc should handle printing of random bitpatterns
> was subject of a bug report
> http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=4586
> and a lengthy discussion. The bug was fixed by Jakub Jelinek in July 2007;
> the fix should be contained in g
Alf mel wrote:
> > While trying out the lastest offerings in Glibc (2.6.1) and GCC (4.2.1) via
> > the DIY-Linux project (www.diy-linux-.org), I encountered the following
> > error in the configure script when compiled with
> >
> > CFLAGS="-O2 -fstack-protector -D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2".
> >
> > Her
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
According to Alf mel on 9/15/2007 8:26 AM:
> While trying out the lastest offerings in Glibc (2.6.1) and GCC (4.2.1) via
> the DIY-Linux project (www.diy-linux-.org), I encountered the following
> error in the configure script when compiled with
>
>
