https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94788
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94788
--- Comment #44 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by H.J. Lu :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:6abe1c3084798d3e5f32926c352643e557073e01
commit r11-27-g6abe1c3084798d3e5f32926c352643e557073e01
Author: H.J. Lu
Date: Sat May 2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94788
--- Comment #43 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Thomas Kथà¤nig :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:116784bbde9ed391393320d936ae2fff37442779
commit r11-25-g116784bbde9ed391393320d936ae2fff37442779
Author: Thomas Koenig
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94788
--- Comment #42 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-8 branch has been updated by Thomas Kथà¤nig
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:b92bb10248a8f99cecf71a54c56bd4d8c75a322f
commit r8-10228-gb92bb10248a8f99cecf71a54c56bd4d8c75a322f
Author: Thomas
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94788
--- Comment #41 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-9 branch has been updated by Thomas Kथà¤nig
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:cb2c76c8b156c6d8541ddb3aa894568a2de3b02b
commit r9-8557-gcb2c76c8b156c6d8541ddb3aa894568a2de3b02b
Author: Thomas Koenig
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94788
--- Comment #40 from Thomas Koenig ---
Yes, that test case works.
Thanks a lot for putting in all the effort!
Because we need -fsanitize=address to reliably detect this
bug, I have proposed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94788
--- Comment #39 from Jürgen Reuter ---
I submitted a corrected 'final' reproducer, sorry about that. Was too tired
yesterday.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94788
--- Comment #38 from Jürgen Reuter ---
Created attachment 48426
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48426=edit
Correct 'final' final reproducer
Indeed,
rt_data_t should have an additional
component
type(rt_data_t), pointer ::
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94788
--- Comment #37 from Thomas Koenig ---
(In reply to Jürgen Reuter from comment #36)
> Hm, I hope I didn't change the flavor of the bug, but you can cross-check
> with the very first reproducer which contains our code more or less
> unchanged
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94788
--- Comment #36 from Jürgen Reuter ---
Hm, I hope I didn't change the flavor of the bug, but you can cross-check with
the very first reproducer which contains our code more or less unchanged
(except for the build setup with autotools etc.).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94788
--- Comment #35 from Thomas Koenig ---
(In reply to Jürgen Reuter from comment #34)
> Created attachment 48411 [details]
> Final reproducer, less than 300 lines ;)
>
> This one should be sufficient. No further files or input is necessary, it
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94788
--- Comment #34 from Jürgen Reuter ---
Created attachment 48411
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48411=edit
Final reproducer, less than 300 lines ;)
This one should be sufficient. No further files or input is necessary, it
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94788
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
--- Comment #33 from Thomas Koenig
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94788
--- Comment #32 from Jürgen Reuter ---
Created attachment 48404
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48404=edit
Reproducer 5, now single file, C code gone, just needs empty Test.mdl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94788
--- Comment #31 from Jürgen Reuter ---
Created attachment 48402
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48402=edit
Reproducer 4, down to 210 kb
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94788
--- Comment #30 from Jürgen Reuter ---
Thomas, can you work with this now!?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94788
--- Comment #29 from Jürgen Reuter ---
Is this now small enough?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94788
--- Comment #28 from Jürgen Reuter ---
Created attachment 48392
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48392=edit
3rd reproducer, down to 600 kb
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94788
--- Comment #27 from Thomas Koenig ---
(In reply to Jürgen Reuter from comment #25)
> Ok, Simon and I try our best, working independently, me reducing the
> existing case further, and he tries to write a small reproducer from scratch.
Thanks a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94788
--- Comment #26 from Jürgen Reuter ---
At least there is no time pressure at the moment ...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94788
--- Comment #25 from Jürgen Reuter ---
(In reply to Thomas Koenig from comment #23)
> (In reply to Jürgen Reuter from comment #20)
> > Thanks a lot for reverting, Thomas, shall I further reduce the reproducer,
> > or can you work with it now?
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94788
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tschwinge at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94788
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
Blocks|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94788
--- Comment #22 from Jürgen Reuter ---
Ok, I stop shrinking the reproducer further down for the moment, let me know if
you need more help. Thanks for your efforts.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94788
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94788
--- Comment #20 from Jürgen Reuter ---
Thanks a lot for reverting, Thomas, shall I further reduce the reproducer, or
can you work with it now?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94788
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|10.0|9.3.1
Summary|[10
27 matches
Mail list logo
