[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: bug #149713

On Mon, 28 Feb 2005, Michael Schwendt wrote:

On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 15:49:30 +0100, Adrian Reber wrote:

Maybe someone can give me some advice how to handle following bug:


The fix for this bug is trivial but I would like to here some input from
others how to handle this situation. Do I just fix it? Should I contact
upstream? Do ignore it, because it only happens with the Intel compiler?

The answer is "Maybe" to all three questions.

The reporter is trying to rebuild all of Extras, looking for compiler
warnings. While compilers can be wrong (example: uninitialized variables
passed by reference; another example: code which is compiled but never
executed at run-time; another example: a missing catch-all rule in a
function which is never called with arguments outside its well-defined
domain), "array subscript out of range" can lead to memory corruption
(write-access beyond array boundary) or undefined behaviour (read-access
outside array range).

After verifying the compiler's warnings, such reports should be forwarded
to upstream developers and are worth fixing, if the code is executed.

I don't think we can expect an extras packager to fix upstream bugs in the code, packagers deal with *packaging* bugs. If the packager *can* fix bugs (and certainly many can, to some extent at least) then fine, but me thinks things like this can safely be closed with "please report upstream instead" unless the bug is caused by FE-specific changes to the software.

- Panu -

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]