On 08/06/2017 02:07 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
> Part 3 of the series contains the meat of the patch: the new
> -Wstringop-truncation option, and enhancements to -Wstringop-
> overflow, and -Wpointer-sizeof-memaccess to detect misuses of
> strncpy and strncat.
>
> Martin
>
> gcc-81117-3.diff
>
>
On 08/06/2017 02:07 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
> Part 2 of the series adds attribute nostring to annotate arrays
> of and pointers to char with that are intended to store sequences
> of characters that aren't necessarily valid (nul-terminated)
> strings. In the subsequent patch the attribute is
On Wed, Aug 09, 2017 at 09:28:22PM -0500, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 10:33:05AM +0930, Alan Modra wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 09, 2017 at 09:06:18PM +, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> > > We can have SAVE_MULTIPLE while we do not have REST_MULTIPLE. If the
> > > inline restore
On 08/06/2017 02:07 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
> The attached patch adds support for a new GCC format specifier,
> G, that behaves like %K but accepts a gcall* argument. This
> makes it possible to provide inlining context for "artificial"
> inline functions like strncpy (with _FORTIFY_SOURCE) in
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23384
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81776
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23384
--- Comment #9 from Martin Sebor ---
As a data point, Clang manages to optimize at least the simple case in bug
81788 as expected. No other compiler I've tested does (IBM XLC, Intel ICC,
Visual Studio, or Sun/Oracle Studio).
On 08/09/2017 01:55 PM, Joseph Myers wrote:
On Wed, 9 Aug 2017, Martin Sebor wrote:
the same function with the other of this pair attributes. I'd
also be okay with not diagnosing this combination if I could
convince myself that it's safe (or can be made safe) and treated
consistently.
I'd
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81788
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23384
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #8
On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 10:33:05AM +0930, Alan Modra wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 09, 2017 at 09:06:18PM +, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> > We can have SAVE_MULTIPLE while we do not have REST_MULTIPLE. If the
> > inline restore does not restore all registers, the CFI for the save
> > and restore can
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81784
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |8.0
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski
On Wed, Aug 09, 2017 at 09:06:18PM +, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> We can have SAVE_MULTIPLE while we do not have REST_MULTIPLE. If the
> inline restore does not restore all registers, the CFI for the save
> and restore can conflict if things are shrink-wrapped.
>
> We could restore all
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81789
Bug ID: 81789
Summary: CWG1687 performed too soon
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81687
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Aug 10 00:33:20 2017
New Revision: 251019
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=251019=gcc=rev
Log:
PR c/81687
* omp-low.c (omp_copy_decl): Don't remap FORCED_LABEL or
On Wed, 2017-08-09 at 20:42 +1200, Michael Cree wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 07, 2017 at 10:28:57AM -0400, David Malcolm wrote:
> > On Mon, 2017-08-07 at 20:12 +1200, Michael Cree wrote:
> >
> > Hi Michael
> >
> > > I am wondering if libgccjit supports vector types, i.e., can one
> > > attach attribute
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81788
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Dup of bug 23384 I think.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81788
Bug ID: 81788
Summary: address of a local variable escapes too early
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
Hi,
This testcase checks the assembly and does an execute of it so it
needs --save-temps like the other testcases.
Committed as obvious after test on aarch64-linux-gnu with no regressions.
Thanks,
Andrew
ChangeLog:
* gcc.target/aarch64/vect-xorsign_exec.c: Add --save-temps to the
options
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81751
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||3.4.2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81643
Steve Ellcey changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sje at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #6
On Aug 9, 2017, at 5:50 AM, Richard Earnshaw (lists)
wrote:
>
> On 09/08/17 12:37, Wilco Dijkstra wrote:
>> Richard Earnshaw wrote:
>>> Except that I think this would be better done as an 'effective target'
>>> test; something like
>>>
>>> dg-require-effective-target
Snapshot gcc-6-20170809 is now available on
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/6-20170809/
and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details.
This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 6 SVN branch
with the following options: svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/branches/gcc-6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81423
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80938
--- Comment #5 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Fixed on trunk for rs6000; backports pending.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79391
--- Comment #2 from Joel Sherrill ---
It builds on the gcc head and the 7 branch now.
Should we just go ahead and close this or does it matter when it was fixed?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81423
--- Comment #10 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Author: segher
Date: Wed Aug 9 21:52:30 2017
New Revision: 251011
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=251011=gcc=rev
Log:
This time with the file added.
Testcase for PR81423
gcc/testsuite/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81787
Bug ID: 81787
Summary: `#pragma GCC diagnostic warning "-fpermissive"` no
longer works since gcc 4.8
Product: gcc
Version: 7.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
On 02/08/17 00:05 +0900, Katsuhiko Nishimra wrote:
On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 03:53:42PM +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
This __has_bultin check only exists for Clang, so should be replaced
by the correct __is_identifier check, not left there in addition to
it.
I see. Actually I've guessed so, and
In Go it's possible to construct an lshift expression using
unsafe.Sizeof that is technically a compile-time constant but can't be
evaluated without going through backend methods. This patch by Than
McIntosh ensures that in this case Type::make_non_abstract_type is
called on the numeric operand
On Tue, Aug 8, 2017 at 6:54 PM, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> Hello!
>
> Attached patch introduces -mstack-protector-guard-reg= and
> -mstack-protector-guard-offset= options to make stack canary location
> customizable. These are the same options powerpc has.
Attached addition adds
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80938
--- Comment #4 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Author: segher
Date: Wed Aug 9 21:08:33 2017
New Revision: 251005
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=251005=gcc=rev
Log:
rs6000: Use SAVE_MULTIPLE only if we restore what it saves (PR80938)
We can
We can have SAVE_MULTIPLE while we do not have REST_MULTIPLE. If the
inline restore does not restore all registers, the CFI for the save
and restore can conflict if things are shrink-wrapped.
We could restore all registers that are saved (not ideal), or emit
the CFI notes to say we did (which
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81423
--- Comment #9 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Author: segher
Date: Wed Aug 9 21:05:45 2017
New Revision: 251004
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=251004=gcc=rev
Log:
Testcase for PR81423
gcc/testsuite/
PR rtl-optimization/81423
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81360
--- Comment #3 from David Binderman ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #2)
> Confirmed, started with r250048.
Still going wrong, nearly a month later.
Revision 250983 seems to demonstrate the problem.
On Wed, Aug 09, 2017 at 09:39:08AM -0500, Will Schmidt wrote:
> I also fixed the (missing) space after
> cast for the existing debug code.
Thanks for that :-)
> * config/rs6000/rs6000.c: (rs6000_option_override_internal) Add blurb
> to indicate when early gimple folding has been
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81525
--- Comment #5 from Jason Merrill ---
(In reply to Jason Merrill from comment #4)
> Modified:
> branches/gcc-7-branch/gcc/cp/ChangeLog
> branches/gcc-7-branch/gcc/cp/pt.c
Reverted for now, as 7.2 is frozen.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81786
Bug ID: 81786
Summary: local restricted pointer can be relied on in alias
analysis
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81525
--- Comment #4 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Wed Aug 9 20:17:55 2017
New Revision: 251001
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=251001=gcc=rev
Log:
PR c++/81525 - wrong constant value with generic lambda
* pt.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67054
--- Comment #6 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Wed Aug 9 20:17:47 2017
New Revision: 251000
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=251000=gcc=rev
Log:
PR c++/67054 - Inherited ctor with non-default-constructible members
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81398
TC changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rs2740 at gmail dot com
--- Comment #1 from TC
On Wed, 9 Aug 2017, Martin Sebor wrote:
> the same function with the other of this pair attributes. I'd
> also be okay with not diagnosing this combination if I could
> convince myself that it's safe (or can be made safe) and treated
> consistently.
I'd expect it to be safe; it might simply
Am 02.08.2017 um 15:19 schrieb Thomas Koenig:
the attached patch is a bit smaller than it looks, because most of
it is due to reformatting a large comment. It is rather simple -
checking for an incorrectly placed BIND(C) variable was sometimes not
done because the test was mixed in with other
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78603
--- Comment #7 from jcmvbkbc at gcc dot gnu.org ---
*** Bug 67586 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67586
jcmvbkbc at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78860
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64546
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
On Wed, Aug 9, 2017 at 6:45 AM, Martin Liška wrote:
> On 08/08/2017 08:03 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
>> On 08/07/2017 10:59 PM, Martin Liška wrote:
>>> On 08/02/2017 09:56 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 08/02/2017 01:04 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 07/28/2017 05:13 AM, Martin Liška
On 08/09/2017 11:13 AM, Joseph Myers wrote:
On Wed, 9 Aug 2017, Martin Sebor wrote:
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/ssa-ccp-2.c
b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/ssa-ccp-2.c
index 146b76c..58a4742 100644
--- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/ssa-ccp-2.c
+++
On Tue, Aug 8, 2017 at 5:01 PM, David Malcolm wrote:
> On Mon, 2017-08-07 at 14:25 -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
>
> Thanks for looking at this.
>
>> On 08/01/2017 04:21 PM, David Malcolm wrote:
>> > @@ -27632,6 +27769,9 @@ cp_parser_sizeof_operand (cp_parser*
>> > parser, enum
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81525
--- Comment #3 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Wed Aug 9 19:21:49 2017
New Revision: 250999
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=250999=gcc=rev
Log:
PR c++/81525 - wrong constant value with generic lambda
* pt.c
In this testcase, when building up an extra version of N to refer to
when instantiating the generic lambda, we were mistakenly replacing
the 'auto' with a template argument for the generic lambda.
Tested x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, applying to trunk and 7.
commit e42e1cc162267b85adfb624daf1b96fc2f5a6f5b
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67586
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67638
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67643
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68834
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81763
--- Comment #13 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Mike Lothian from comment #12)
> Created attachment 41960 [details]
> si_shader objdumps
We need a small testcase in C.
On 08/06/2017 02:07 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
>>>
>>> You're right that there is no truncation and the effect is
>>> the same but only in the unlikely case when the destination
>>> is empty. Otherwise the result is truncated.
>> Maybe this is where I'm confused. How does the destination play into
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68033
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81785
Bug ID: 81785
Summary: Segmentation fault for signed overflow in index
expression when -fwrapv is enabled
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81359
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
Component|c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81359
--- Comment #3 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Wed Aug 9 18:32:02 2017
New Revision: 250994
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=250994=gcc=rev
Log:
PR c++/81359 - Unparsed NSDMI error from SFINAE context.
* init.c
The issue here is that we try to determine the EH specification of
B::C::C() from within SFINAE context, and we can't determine it yet
because the NSDMI for B::C::i hasn't been parsed yet. This patch
allows that determination to fail quietly in SFINAE context; we'll try
again the next time it is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67694
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
On Wed, Aug 9, 2017 at 10:28 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 9, 2017 at 8:26 AM, Andi Kleen wrote:
>>> This must be much more specific. How does it impact:
>>>
>>> 1. LTO
>>> 2. Function inlining.
>>> 3. Partial function inlining.
>>> 4.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79820
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80938
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81751
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Wed Aug 9 17:52:10 2017
New Revision: 250993
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=250993=gcc=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/81751 don't call fflush(NULL)
PR libstdc++/79820
PR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79820
--- Comment #8 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Wed Aug 9 17:52:10 2017
New Revision: 250993
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=250993=gcc=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/81751 don't call fflush(NULL)
PR libstdc++/79820
PR
On 09/08/17 18:39 +0200, Paolo Carlini wrote:
Hi,
On 9 Aug 2017, at 17:56, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
This fixes a couple of problems in __gnu_cxx::stdio_filebuf,
specifically in the __basic_file::sys_open(FILE*, openmode) function
it uses when constructed from an existing
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80618
--- Comment #14 from Martin Liška ---
*** Bug 80503 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80503
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
On Wed, Aug 9, 2017 at 8:26 AM, Andi Kleen wrote:
>> This must be much more specific. How does it impact:
>>
>> 1. LTO
>> 2. Function inlining.
>> 3. Partial function inlining.
>> 4. Shrink-wrapping.
>>
>> Any of them can impact function stack frame.
>
> It doesn't. It's
The libgo implementation of math.Ldexp declared the libc "ldexp" as
taking an 'int' exponent argument, which is not quite right for 64-bit
platforms (exp arg is always int32); this could yield incorrect
results for exponent values outside the range of Minint32/Maxint32.
This patch by Than McIntosh
On Wed, 9 Aug 2017, Martin Sebor wrote:
> > > diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/ssa-ccp-2.c
> > > b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/ssa-ccp-2.c
> > > index 146b76c..58a4742 100644
> > > --- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/ssa-ccp-2.c
> > > +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/ssa-ccp-2.c
>
On Wed, Aug 09, 2017 at 05:54:40PM +0100, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> Segher Boessenkool writes:
> > We need it, for example, to properly cost the various define_insn_and_split
> > (for which "type" is only an approximation, and is woefully inadequate
> > for
On Wed, 9 Aug 2017, Jeff Law wrote:
> This directly reverts part of Joseph's changes from 2009. I'd like to
> hear from him on this change.
The point of those changes was to make cpplib diagnostics use the
compiler's diagnostic machinery rather than a separate set of diagnostic
machinery in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81763
--- Comment #12 from Mike Lothian ---
Created attachment 41960
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=41960=edit
si_shader objdumps
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81763
--- Comment #11 from Mike Lothian ---
So a lot of the segfaults I see are in si_shader so I thought I'd compile Mesa
with and without BMI and compare the onjdumps of the two .o files
CFLAGS="-O2 -march=native -pipe -mno-bmi -m32" CXXFLAGS="-O2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81784
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
On Tue, Aug 08, 2017 at 10:41:05AM -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 08/05/2017 11:15 AM, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> > For size cost I currently use just "length", but I haven't looked at
> > size cost much at all yet.
> I think that's fine. "length" is pretty standardized at this point and
> it's the
Segher Boessenkool writes:
> On Wed, Aug 09, 2017 at 09:56:31AM -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
>> On 08/08/2017 10:54 AM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>> > I was thinking we should have separate attributes for size and speed
>> > from the outset. How about size_cost and
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81753
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
--- Comment #6 from Segher
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80295
--- Comment #2 from Andreas Schwab ---
No, it doesn't. It only made it possible to call the builtin from the
frontend.
On 08/06/2017 01:59 AM, Boris Kolpackov wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Currently GCC does not write extracted header dependency information
> if there are errors. However, this can be useful when dealing with
> outdated generated headers that trigger errors which would have been
> resolved if we could update
On Wed, Aug 09, 2017 at 09:56:31AM -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 08/08/2017 10:54 AM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> > I was thinking we should have separate attributes for size and speed
> > from the outset. How about size_cost and speed_cost? It'd be up
> > to the target to decide whether to define
Hi,
> On 9 Aug 2017, at 17:56, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>
> This fixes a couple of problems in __gnu_cxx::stdio_filebuf,
> specifically in the __basic_file::sys_open(FILE*, openmode) function
> it uses when constructed from an existing FILE stream.
>
> Firstly, r86756 changed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81751
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Or just call fflush(__file) directly:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2017-08/msg00673.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81778
Alexander Monakov changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
On 08/03/2017 10:23 AM, Alexander Monakov wrote:
> On Thu, 3 Aug 2017, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>> Do we really need to rename and poison anything? qsort () in the source is
>> something that is most obvious to developers, so trying to force them to use
>> something different will just mean extra
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81767
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|INVALID |FIXED
Target Milestone|---
On 08/03/2017 09:52 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 03, 2017 at 09:33:13AM -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
>> On 08/03/2017 08:24 AM, Alexander Monakov wrote:
>>> On Wed, 2 Aug 2017, Jeff Law wrote:
>> Well, there's not *that* many qsort calls. My quick grep shows 94 and
>> its a very
On 08/07/2017 11:59 PM, Slava Barinov wrote:
> * g++.dg/asan/asan.exp: Switch on *.cc tests.
>
> Signed-off-by: Slava Barinov
> ---
> gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog| 4
> gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/asan/asan.exp | 2 +-
> 2 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79565
--- Comment #2 from H.J. Lu ---
Created attachment 41959
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=41959=edit
A patch
I got
[hjl@gnu-6 pr79565]$ cat x.i
typedef float a __attribute__ ((__vector_size__ (16)));
a b, d;
int
On 08/08/2017 12:46 AM, Vyacheslav Barinov wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Andrew Pinski writes:
>
>> On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 11:15 PM, Slava Barinov wrote:
>>>gcc/
>>>* varasm.c (use_object_blocks_p): Forbid section anchors for ASan
>>>
>>>
Jeff Law writes:
> On 08/08/2017 10:54 AM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
For speed cost I primarily use "type", modified by the number of machine
insns a pattern generates (quite a few are split); and I get the number
of machine insns just from "length" again, which for
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81767
Antony Polukhin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
On 08/06/2017 05:08 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
>>
>> Well, simply because the way as implemented isn't a must-alias query
>> but maybe one that's good enough for warnings (reduces false positives
>> but surely doesn't eliminate them).
>
> I'm very interested in reducing the rate of false positives
On 09/08/17 16:05, Michael Collison wrote:
> Patch updated to remove -mstructure-size-boundary from tests based on
> comments from Richard. Outdated comments also removed.
>
> Okay for trunk?
OK.
R.
>
> 2017-08-01 Michael Collison
>
> *
On 08/03/2017 02:45 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
>
> Well, simply because the way as implemented isn't a must-alias query
> but maybe one that's good enough for warnings (reduces false positives
> but surely doesn't eliminate them).
OK. So it's more about building a proper must-alias query and less
1 - 100 of 212 matches
Mail list logo