On 07/30/14 05:54, Marc Glisse wrote:
On Tue, 29 Jul 2014, David Malcolm wrote:
On Tue, 2014-07-29 at 19:36 +0200, Marc Glisse wrote:
On Sun, 27 Jul 2014, Richard Sandiford wrote:
Marc Glisse <marc.gli...@inria.fr> writes:
Hello,
I followed the advice in this discussion:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-04/msg00269.html
and here is a new patch. I made an effort to isolate a path in at
least
one subcase so it doesn't look too strange that the warning is in this
file. Computing the dominance info just to tweak the warning
message may
be a bit excessive.
How about only calculating it once you've decided to issue a message?
+ if (always_executed)
+ msg = "function returns address of local variable";
+ else
+ msg = "function may return address of local variable";
I think you need _(...) here, unless some magic makes that
unnecessary now.
Current version, which passed bootstrap+testsuite on x86_64-linux-gnu.
(the original discussion is at
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-06/msg01692.html )
This is possibly a dumb question, but what happens for a static local,
rather than an auto local? e.g.
int *f (void)
{
static int i;
return &i;
}
(e.g. should the test case cover this?)
New version with a static local variable in the testcase, and without
using build_compound_expr in the C front-end to avoid extra warnings.
Same ChangeLog, same testsuite results.
Approved.
Jeff
