https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61236
--- Comment #9 from Mukund Sivaraman muks at banu dot com ---
Hi Jakub, Markus
We discussed this during our daily standup call today, and there are two
points we'd like to make:
1. The qsort() defintion in C99 doesn't explicitly state that base
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61236
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61236
--- Comment #11 from Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #10)
If you believe the nonnull attribute on qsort is incorrect, then you should
report that as glibc bug, not gcc bug, the prototype is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61236
--- Comment #12 from Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #11)
It is not incorrect as the C standard says this about qsort:
nmemb can have the value zero on a call to that function; the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61236
--- Comment #13 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #11)
It is not incorrect as the C standard says this about qsort:
nmemb can have the value zero on a call to that function; the comparison
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61236
--- Comment #14 from Mukund Sivaraman muks at banu dot com ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #10)
But the compiler doesn't know there that x is NULL. The compiler sees a
See comment #3. It generates 2 codepaths, one where (nalloc ==
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61236
--- Comment #15 from Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Mukund Sivaraman from comment #14)
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #10)
But the compiler doesn't know there that x is NULL. The compiler sees a
See
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61236
--- Comment #16 from Mukund Sivaraman muks at banu dot com ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #15)
At the very least, if it is possible to detect that the pointer is NULL by
static analysis and it is being passed to a function that
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61236
--- Comment #1 from Mukund Sivaraman muks at banu dot com ---
The following is _correct_ generated x8t_64 code for
dns_rdataslab_fromrdataset() as compiled with:
gcc version 4.8.2 20131212 (Red Hat 4.8.2-7) (GCC)
Under free_rdatas label, you
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61236
--- Comment #2 from Mukund Sivaraman muks at banu dot com ---
This is the C function (so you can compare notes from the next comment):
isc_result_t
dns_rdataslab_fromrdataset(dns_rdataset_t *rdataset, isc_mem_t *mctx,
isc_region_t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61236
--- Comment #3 from Mukund Sivaraman muks at banu dot com ---
The following is _incorrect_ generated x86_64 code for
dns_rdataslab_fromrdataset() as compiled with:
gcc version 4.9.1 20140507 (prerelease) (GCC).
(the current version of GCC on
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61236
Markus Trippelsdorf trippels at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61236
--- Comment #5 from Markus Trippelsdorf trippels at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Markus Trippelsdorf from comment #4)
Could you please try to reproduce the issue with a more recent snapshot:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61236
--- Comment #6 from Markus Trippelsdorf trippels at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Markus Trippelsdorf from comment #4)
Could you please try to reproduce the issue with a more recent snapshot:
No need. I can reproduce the issue and will look
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61236
--- Comment #7 from Markus Trippelsdorf trippels at gcc dot gnu.org ---
-fno-delete-null-pointer-checks fixes the issue and is an easy workaround
for now.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61236
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot
16 matches
Mail list logo
