Re: GDB multi-build failure in lm32-opc.c file

[Dave Korn <dave dot korn dot cygwin at googlemail dot com>]

Pierre Muller wrote:
> 
>   The easiest was finally to add an
>  if (num_macros >= 1)
> before the memset call.
>   When num_macros is zero, the call gets
> optimized out, and thus no warning is issued.

  Does that still work at -O0?

>   It turned out to be necessary for 3 files.
> 
>   I had one more warning in  tic54x-dis.c file
> about a call to sprintf with only two arguments.
> Not sure the fix is the right one there...

>            const char *code[] = { "eq", "lt", "gt", "neq" };
> -          sprintf (operand[i], code[CC3 (opcode)]);
> +          sprintf (operand[i], "%s", code[CC3 (opcode)]);
>            info->fprintf_func (info->stream, "%s%s", comma, operand[i]);

  Yeh, that looks good to me.  The compiler's presumably worrying about some
kind of potential for a format-string vulnerability.  Although the strings
pointed to by the code[] array are const, the pointers aren't, so effectively
the strings could in theory be manipulated.  Replacing the decl with "const
char * const code[]" might fix it too, but who knows maybe some day
somebody'll decide to generate the whole array algorithmically at runtime, so
best to code defensively.

>   Could you check these in under the obvious rule?

  I'd prefer to ask approval from a formal maintainer for anything much more
complex than "pruntf"->"printf" sort of typo fixes if you don't mind.  PING
maintainers?

    cheers,
      DaveK