From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.linux.lib.musl.general/1752
Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail
From: agent <agentprog@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: gmane.linux.lib.musl.general
Subject: Re: build musl with clang
Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2012 11:57:16 +0600
Message-ID: <5038693C.2020101@gmail.com>
References: <20120823175545.GQ27715@brightrain.aerifal.cx> <5037181B.9050508@gmail.com> <20120824060611.GX27715@brightrain.aerifal.cx> <5037596C.1030409@gmail.com> <20120824110153.GA23569@port70.net> <503771F3.2040204@gmail.com> <20120824145938.GA7705@port70.net> <20120824175150.GE27715@brightrain.aerifal.cx> <5037CE26.3060702@gmail.com> <20120824190421.GA11149@port70.net> <20120825000917.GK27715@brightrain.aerifal.cx>
Reply-To: musl@lists.openwall.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1345874320 20942 80.91.229.3 (25 Aug 2012 05:58:40 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2012 05:58:40 +0000 (UTC)
To: musl@lists.openwall.com
Original-X-From: musl-return-1753-gllmg-musl=m.gmane.org@lists.openwall.com Sat Aug 25 07:58:41 2012
Return-path: <musl-return-1753-gllmg-musl=m.gmane.org@lists.openwall.com>
Envelope-to: gllmg-musl@plane.gmane.org
Original-Received: from mother.openwall.net ([195.42.179.200])
	by plane.gmane.org with smtp (Exim 4.69)
	(envelope-from <musl-return-1753-gllmg-musl=m.gmane.org@lists.openwall.com>)
	id 1T59OJ-0002zt-FW
	for gllmg-musl@plane.gmane.org; Sat, 25 Aug 2012 07:58:39 +0200
Original-Received: (qmail 16297 invoked by uid 550); 25 Aug 2012 05:58:36 -0000
Mailing-List: contact musl-help@lists.openwall.com; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Post: <mailto:musl@lists.openwall.com>
List-Help: <mailto:musl-help@lists.openwall.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:musl-unsubscribe@lists.openwall.com>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:musl-subscribe@lists.openwall.com>
Original-Received: (qmail 16287 invoked from network); 25 Aug 2012 05:58:36 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
        h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references
         :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding;
        bh=1p3M7SIGRIQIydJvWrDcTQPTIMb876tbk7bwm8EW4kw=;
        b=XWboYlt36yAAyM+AXUOcoiugx8n6rF7bibC6KuxUvEb+6jtfg1VOudiq7ob27d2ii3
         RRJtT8vhoBLxqC/aYpHP2LVP5lblnPcECbWMdSkSgCGHLu/IPAQqdiAjA2LYxTeI9hOC
         14M9MDs1tKavg3/OxXRsxup180/KHQxYzEXmUNYsBd93a6TwJjqWm0kg1JB4typ1/YLZ
         alHlyBglLjHY071dI8cSfO/G7QBBmXTDNY9Rds2YorrXejMJWPFlW4Fp60/VlvzJKBc+
         500lLZLJiCSr6oHEp1ZgkHYOLBdrgr+BueoKYrn0APyglggtTCqulQW2kXBO0Scllam7
         ZxxQ==
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:14.0) Gecko/20120714 Thunderbird/14.0
In-Reply-To: <20120825000917.GK27715@brightrain.aerifal.cx>
Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.linux.lib.musl.general:1752
Archived-At: <http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.linux.lib.musl.general/1752>

25.08.2012 06:09, Rich Felker пишет:
> Here's an idea for a workaround:
>
> void *not_called_malloc(size_t) __asm__("malloc");
> #define malloc not_called_malloc
>
> If that fixes it, it would be an amusing way to present it in the bug
> report.
>
> Rich
that is stilled optimized for a plain malloc call even if i call 
not_called_malloc directly and not via a macro. to test the bug i used 
the following function:

void *foo(size_t n) {
static char buf[200];
return buf + 10;
}

and that was the way when 'if' was not optimized out. if i use malloc in 
foo() it is still wiped out.
as far as i know, optimizations are done not only in clang itself but in 
llvm too, so maybe if clang does not notice malloc, llvm does.