Thanks a lot for the prompt feedback Maxim,
All clear now!
On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 9:18 PM, Maxim Ostapenko
wrote:
> On 31/03/16 18:20, Gayan Pathirage wrote:
>>
>> Hi Maxim,
>>
>> Thanks a lot for the information. I find it very useful for my future
>> tests.
>>
>> Also I found this page main
On 03/31/2016 10:30 AM, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 04:32:50PM -0600, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 03/28/2016 01:56 PM, Florian Weimer wrote:
In Bugzilla PR # 70275, Manuel López-Ibáñez reports that even though
he provides the "-Werror=return-type" option, the compiler doesn't
f
On 31 March 2016 at 21:10, Daniel Gutson wrote:
> Hi,
>
> many times we copy code snippets from sources that change the
> Unicode quotation marks ( “ ” ) rather than " ". For example
>
> const std::string a_string(“Hello”);
>
> That line looks innocent but causes gcc to say
>
> x.cpp
Hi,
many times we copy code snippets from sources that change the
Unicode quotation marks ( “ ” ) rather than " ". For example
const std::string a_string(“Hello”);
That line looks innocent but causes gcc to say
x.cpp:4:1: error: stray ‘\342’ in program
const std::string a_string
On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 06:34:12PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Segher Boessenkool:
>
> > On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 04:32:50PM -0600, Martin Sebor wrote:
> >> On 03/28/2016 01:56 PM, Florian Weimer wrote:
> >> >>In Bugzilla PR # 70275, Manuel López-Ibáñez reports that even though
> >> >>he provi
* Segher Boessenkool:
> On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 04:32:50PM -0600, Martin Sebor wrote:
>> On 03/28/2016 01:56 PM, Florian Weimer wrote:
>> >>In Bugzilla PR # 70275, Manuel López-Ibáñez reports that even though
>> >>he provides the "-Werror=return-type" option, the compiler doesn't
>> >>flag the war
On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 04:32:50PM -0600, Martin Sebor wrote:
> On 03/28/2016 01:56 PM, Florian Weimer wrote:
> >>In Bugzilla PR # 70275, Manuel López-Ibáñez reports that even though
> >>he provides the "-Werror=return-type" option, the compiler doesn't
> >>flag the warning/error about a control re
On 31/03/16 18:20, Gayan Pathirage wrote:
Hi Maxim,
Thanks a lot for the information. I find it very useful for my future tests.
Also I found this page maintained by ASAN developers
https://github.com/google/sanitizers/wiki/AddressSanitizerClangVsGCC
which lists some of the differences.
Yes,
Hi Maxim,
Thanks a lot for the information. I find it very useful for my future tests.
Also I found this page maintained by ASAN developers
https://github.com/google/sanitizers/wiki/AddressSanitizerClangVsGCC
which lists some of the differences.
Finally any plans to integrate other sanitizer too
Hi,
I was trying to address first TODO from ipa-comdats.c (attached patch)
TODO: When symbol is used only by comdat symbols, but from different groups,
it would make sense to produce a new comdat group for it with anonymous name.
The patch introduces new lattice value ANON "between" COMDAT and BOT
Hi.
On 31/03/16 12:52, Gayan Pathirage wrote:
Hi,
I find it difficult to locate the information regarding the version of
the sanitizers (i.e. LLVM Sanitizers) integrated with GCC 4.9.3. Could
anyone suggest me a location where I can find this information.
This is indeed difficult. AFAIK, ther
Hi,
I find it difficult to locate the information regarding the version of
the sanitizers (i.e. LLVM Sanitizers) integrated with GCC 4.9.3. Could
anyone suggest me a location where I can find this information.
My question is due to some of the run time flags defined in ASAN is
not recognized in G
12 matches
Mail list logo
