From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail.seebs.net (mail.seebs.net [162.213.38.76]) by mx.groups.io with SMTP id smtpd.web08.10961.1627571325167605865 for ; Thu, 29 Jul 2021 08:08:45 -0700 Authentication-Results: mx.groups.io; dkim=pass header.i=@seebs.net header.s=mail header.b=X0nbSHhN; spf=pass (domain: seebs.net, ip: 162.213.38.76, mailfrom: seebs@seebs.net) Received: from seebsdell (unknown [24.196.59.174]) by mail.seebs.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 186E62E891F for ; Thu, 29 Jul 2021 10:08:42 -0500 (CDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=seebs.net; s=mail; t=1627571323; bh=NHNIkwxWqEmc6VE8trhJImm0QMDKKQlhUyAxZmf7fpA=; h=Date:From:To:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=X0nbSHhNERsWag0CvNFTiULZC5t2MpaSj0Zp1XtrVlmvDZJOWDYw0dGdGMpnUa32k 9+AQz5iBdZX7tcIcm4m7if7bmEUFcnphTCktcqRvC1Gzarfulvj/rT6dManrc3o7yM uY2rtGt5QyqNahFLwlJwQRYLh6+6YRRAlVooAORbu8AYFIPo8jMP/WweHrjd/0izA+ 2PHvfbysz4Qiv0Ec0Eks62cqOHHscrWuf3zn+HJTbe9lOXDorhGflBbX9tfQ0RGi9J CWCaHOXAPw+LHu0f522d9FCkbF1s1bPaCoi5jHiigqG2NZJqZkMDwrOZC9KpVc8Ynb 6vMQQtypWBnHw== Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2021 10:08:38 -0500 From: "Seebs" To: "openembedded-core" Subject: Re: [OE-core] [PATCH pseudo 4/4] Do not return address of local variable - unverified Message-ID: <20210729100838.76076078@seebsdell> In-Reply-To: <17af2450a5a.11cd2feba245412.5780322336925190641@ertelnet.rybnik.pl> References: <20210727114906.191837-1-dwrobel@ertelnet.rybnik.pl> <20210727114906.191837-4-dwrobel@ertelnet.rybnik.pl> <20210727104712.385ad146@seebsdell> <17ae8cdb530.110af7c7857737.3405175808509729608@ertelnet.rybnik.pl> <20210727115246.04b8ffa4@seebsdell> <17aec78de72.dbb79e7b5562.7908341287383433208@ertelnet.rybnik.pl> <20210728151641.667338a5@seebsdell> <17af2450a5a.11cd2feba245412.5780322336925190641@ertelnet.rybnik.pl> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.17.8 (GTK+ 2.24.32; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Thu, 29 Jul 2021 14:37:28 +0200 "Damian Wrobel" wrote: > the PSEUDO_MSG_OP is being unconditionally assigned to the msg.type > before any real usage of the 'msg' structure. So, if I'm not mistaken > that code was already tested and didn't work well and was reverted > here[1]. I don't think that's identical. msg = (pseudo_msg_t) { .type = PSEUDO_MSG_OP }; zeros out a number of other fields. Anyway, if it fails with msg declared static, I'd be interested in a minimal reproducer for it, I don't see anything obvious that ought to care about it, but I would easily believe that the other fields not being zeroed out would cause weirdness, which is why I suggested a complete assignment to it, not just overwriting the .type field. -s