Legacy Windows did not need to #include <intrin.h> to use the MSVC
intrinsics. Newer versions likely just issue a warning, but the MSVC
documentation says to include the header file for the intrinsics we use.
GCC and Clang can "pretend" to be MSVC on Windows, so extra checks are
needed in tuklib_integer.h to only include <intrin.h> when it will is
actually needed.
The \mainpage command is used in the first block of comments in lzma.h.
This changes the previously nearly empty index.html to use the first
comment block in lzma.h for its contents.
lzma.h is no longer documented separately, but this is for the better
since lzma.h only defined a few macros that users do not need to use.
The individual API header files all have a disclaimer that they should
not be #included directly, so there should be no confusion on the fact
that lzma.h should be the only header used by applications.
Additionally, the note "See ../lzma.h for information about liblzma as
a whole." was removed since lzma.h is now the main page of the
generated HTML and does not have its own page anymore. So it would be
confusing in the HTML version and was only a "nice to have" when
browsing the source files.
lzma_lzma_preset() does not guarentee that the lzma_options_lzma are
usable in an encoder even if it returns false (success). If liblzma
is built with default configurations, then the options will always be
usable. However if the match finders hc3, hc4, or bt4 are disabled, then
the options may not be usable depending on the preset level requested.
The documentation was updated to reflect this complexity, since this
behavior was unclear before.
All functions now explicitly specify parameter and return values.
The notes and code annotations were moved before the parameter and
return value descriptions for consistency.
Also, the description above lzma_filter_encoder_is_supported() about
not being able to list available filters was removed since
lzma_str_list_filters() will do this.
In the C99 and C17 standards, section 6.5.6 paragraph 8 means that
adding 0 to a null pointer is undefined behavior. As of writing,
"clang -fsanitize=undefined" (Clang 15) diagnoses this. However,
I'm not aware of any compiler that would take advantage of this
when optimizing (Clang 15 included). It's good to avoid this anyway
since compilers might some day infer that pointer arithmetic implies
that the pointer is not NULL. That is, the following foo() would then
unconditionally return 0, even for foo(NULL, 0):
void bar(char *a, char *b);
int foo(char *a, size_t n)
{
bar(a, a + n);
return a == NULL;
}
In contrast to C, C++ explicitly allows null pointer + 0. So if
the above is compiled as C++ then there is no undefined behavior
in the foo(NULL, 0) call.
To me it seems that changing the C standard would be the sane
thing to do (just add one sentence) as it would ensure that a huge
amount of old code won't break in the future. Based on web searches
it seems that a large number of codebases (where null pointer + 0
occurs) are being fixed instead to be future-proof in case compilers
will some day optimize based on it (like making the above foo(NULL, 0)
return 0) which in the worst case will cause security bugs.
Some projects don't plan to change it. For example, gnulib and thus
many GNU tools currently require that null pointer + 0 is defined:
https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-gnulib/2021-11/msg00000.htmlhttps://www.gnu.org/software/gnulib/manual/html_node/Other-portability-assumptions.html
In XZ Utils null pointer + 0 issue should be fixed after this
commit. This adds a few if-statements and thus branches to avoid
null pointer + 0. These check for size > 0 instead of ptr != NULL
because this way bugs where size > 0 && ptr == NULL will likely
get caught quickly. None of them are in hot spots so it shouldn't
matter for performance.
A little less readable version would be replacing
ptr + offset
with
offset != 0 ? ptr + offset : ptr
or creating a macro for it:
#define my_ptr_add(ptr, offset) \
((offset) != 0 ? ((ptr) + (offset)) : (ptr))
Checking for offset != 0 instead of ptr != NULL allows GCC >= 8.1,
Clang >= 7, and Clang-based ICX to optimize it to the very same code
as ptr + offset. That is, it won't create a branch. So for hot code
this could be a good solution to avoid null pointer + 0. Unfortunately
other compilers like ICC 2021 or MSVC 19.33 (VS2022) will create a
branch from my_ptr_add().
Thanks to Marcin Kowalczyk for reporting the problem:
https://github.com/tukaani-project/xz/issues/36
Standardizing each function to always specify parameters and return
values. Also moved the parameters and return values to the end of each
function description.
Use "member" to refer to struct members as that's the term used
by the C standard.
Use lzma_options_delta.dist and such in docs so that in Doxygen's
HTML output they will link to the doc of the struct member.
Clean up a few trailing white spaces too.
It gives C4146 here since unary minus with unsigned integer
is still unsigned (which is the intention here). Doing it
with substraction makes it clearer and avoids the warning.
Thanks to Nathan Moinvaziri for reporting this.
Standardizing each function to always specify parameters and return
values. Also moved the parameters and return values to the end of each
function description.
A few small things were reworded and long sentences broken up.
All functions now explicitly specify parameter and return values.
Also moved the note about SHA-256 functions not being exported to the
top of the file.
The bug is only a problem in applications that do not properly terminate
the filters[] array with LZMA_VLI_UNKNOWN or have more than
LZMA_FILTERS_MAX filters. This bug does not affect xz.
Added a few sentences to the description for lzma_block_encoder() and
lzma_block_decoder() to highlight that the Block Header must be coded
before calling these functions.
Standardizing each function to always specify params and return values.
Output pointer parameters are also marked with doxygen style [out] to
make it clear. Any note sections were also moved above the parameter and
return sections for consistency.
The flag description for LZMA_STR_NO_VALIDATION was previously confusing
about the treatment for filters than cannot be used with .xz format
(lzma1) without using LZMA_STR_ALL_FILTERS. Now, it is clear that
LZMA_STR_NO_VALIDATION is not a super set of LZMA_STR_ALL_FILTERS.
The previous documentation for lzma_str_to_filters() was technically
correct, but misleading. lzma_str_to_filters() returns NULL on success,
which is in practice always defined to 0. This is the same value as
LZMA_OK, but lzma_str_to_filters() does not return lzma_ret so we should
be more clear.
It doesn't warn on a 64-bit system because truncating
a ptrdiff_t (signed long) to uint32_t is diagnosed under
-Wconversion by GCC and -Wshorten-64-to-32 by Clang.
Jia Tan
Lasse Collin