PING [PATCH] warn for strlen of arrays with missing nul (PR 86552)

[Bernd Edlinger]

On 08/01/18 18:34, Martin Sebor wrote:
>>> If you care about detecting bugs I would expect you to be
>>> supportive rather than dismissive of this work, and helpful
>>> in bringing it to fruition rather that putting it down or
>>> questioning my priorities.  Especially since the work was
>>> prompted by your own (valid) complaint that GCC doesn't
>>> diagnose them.
>>>
>>
>> You don't really listen to what I am saying, I did not say
>> that we need another warning instead of fixing the wrong
>> optimization issue at hand.
>>
>> But I am in good company, you don't listen to Jakub and Richi
>> either.
> 
> I certainly intend to fix bugs I'm responsible for introducing.
> I always do if given the chance.  I assume you are referring
> to bug 86711 (and 86714).  Fixing the underlying problem has
> been on my mind since you first mentioned it, and on my to-do
> list since last week (bug 86688).  You have now submitted
> a patch for both of the former, plus a follow-on patch, but
> you didn't assign either of the bugs to yourself, or indicated
> if the patch fixes 86688, or if you intend to work on it too.
> I haven't reviewed the patches in any detail except to note
> that they touch the same area as mine and likely conflict.
> I'm not sure what I should do now.  Work on fixing these bugs
> myself?  (I would prefer to.)  Try to rebase my work on top
> of yours to see what the conflicts are and try to resolve
> them them in my ongoing work?  Or just keep working on my
> stuff and deal with the conflicts after your patches have
> been committed?  Or continue to debate conflicting priorities
> and try to resolve them first?
> 
> (Those are mostly rhetorical questions.)  The point is that
> if you would just let me fix my bugs we would not have this
> conundrum.  Your test cases are helpful.  But as I have said
> over and over, submitting patches for the same code at the same
> time and even undoing some prior work with no coordination is
> a recipe for confusion and conflict.  I don't recall this
> happening in the past and I don't really understand what
> triggered it in this case.  This isn't an area that normally
> sees a lot of activity.
> 

Martin,

I am totally sorry for this confusion.  I would please
ask you to do your work a bit slower, and that we please
can talk over the direction in which we want to go on.
For instance in the moment not so many new warnings, when
we actually should look at correctness and reliability issues.
I do definitely not want to revert your work, but I will have
to hedge it where it goes too far, but that does not mean that
it will be worthless.

What made my alarm bells ring is the speed in which new buggy
features, are being implemented recently, while at the same time
several global reviewers raised concerns, which would not be
honored.  That is not a good thing.

To me it is an serious problem when those global reviewers
do not seem to agree on the way these features are implemented.

To be honest, I do not believe in democracy, or majority decisions.
But I always slow down when there is no consensus, and look for a
solution that is acceptable for all the key players.


Bernd.