This is the mail archive of the crossgcc@sourceware.org mailing list for the crossgcc project.
See the CrossGCC FAQ for lots more information.
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |
Other format: | [Raw text] |
On Fri, Feb 03, 2012 at 03:23:33PM +0100, Yann E. MORIN wrote: > On Friday 03 February 2012 15:13:59 Johannes Stezenbach wrote: > > On Fri, Feb 03, 2012 at 02:21:23PM +0100, Yann E. MORIN wrote: > > > On Friday 03 February 2012 11:16:27 Bob Dunlop wrote: > > > > On Thu, Feb 02 at 01:15, Richard Koch wrote: > > > > > I'm seeing an alignment issue when I'm incrementing a pointer. > > > > > > I Just tried your .config and your sample C code, and it seems to work here > > > (with the buffer overflow fixed): > > > > As Martin Guy pointed out the issue may be caused > > by wrong alignment. In fact the behaviour of the code > > is undefined according to C99 if buffer is not suitably aligned: > > https://www.securecoding.cert.org/confluence/display/seccode/EXP36-C.+Do+not+convert+pointers+into+more+strictly+aligned+pointer+types > > Indeed, but with the same .config (ie the same compiler settings), and the > same code, I get a correct result, where Richard does not. Richard has real hardware (ARMv5, Technologics TS-7350 ARM920T). Since unaligned writes are undefined in ARMv5 qemu-arm is free to do whatever it wants -- if you don't know what the hw would do you can't emulate it 100%, I think. Johannes -- For unsubscribe information see http://sourceware.org/lists.html#faq
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |