> 2On Sun, 8 Dec 2019, Jan Hubicka wrote: > > > Other explanation would be that our new qsort with broken comparator due to > > overflow can actualy remove some entries in the array, but that sounds bit > > crazy. > > gcc_qsort only reorders elements, making it possible for gcc_qsort_chk (that > runs afterwards) to catch crazy comparators in a sound manner. > > > Bootstrapped/regested x86_64-linux. Comitted. > > I have a few comments, please see below.
Thanks. I will revisit the patch tomorrow - as mentioned in the other mail I got overzelaous about the 64bit support - we can easily sort out too large numbers as broken profile. This was end of very long debugging session and I should have tought it out better. Honza
