Jason,
This patch prevents creating out-of-bounds BIT_FIELD_REFs in 3 locations.
It fixes a SIGSEGV (triggered by gimple_fold_indirect_ref_1) in
simplify_bitfield_ref. I've added an assert to detect the problematic
BIT_FIELD_REF there.
Bootstrapped and reg-tested on x86_64.
OK for trunk?
T
[ Fix email address Marc ]
On 26-11-13 08:57, Tom de Vries wrote:
Jason,
This patch prevents creating out-of-bounds BIT_FIELD_REFs in 3 locations.
It fixes a SIGSEGV (triggered by gimple_fold_indirect_ref_1) in
simplify_bitfield_ref. I've added an assert to detect the problematic
BIT_FIELD_REF
On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 8:57 AM, Tom de Vries wrote:
> Jason,
>
> This patch prevents creating out-of-bounds BIT_FIELD_REFs in 3 locations.
>
> It fixes a SIGSEGV (triggered by gimple_fold_indirect_ref_1) in
> simplify_bitfield_ref. I've added an assert to detect the problematic
> BIT_FIELD_REF th
On 26-11-13 11:12, Richard Biener wrote:
On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 8:57 AM, Tom de Vries wrote:
Jason,
This patch prevents creating out-of-bounds BIT_FIELD_REFs in 3 locations.
It fixes a SIGSEGV (triggered by gimple_fold_indirect_ref_1) in
simplify_bitfield_ref. I've added an assert to detect
On 11/26/13 14:10, Tom de Vries wrote:
On 26-11-13 11:12, Richard Biener wrote:
On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 8:57 AM, Tom de Vries
wrote:
Jason,
This patch prevents creating out-of-bounds BIT_FIELD_REFs in 3
locations.
It fixes a SIGSEGV (triggered by gimple_fold_indirect_ref_1) in
simplify_bitfi
On 27-11-13 07:20, Jeff Law wrote:
On 11/26/13 14:10, Tom de Vries wrote:
On 26-11-13 11:12, Richard Biener wrote:
On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 8:57 AM, Tom de Vries
wrote:
Jason,
This patch prevents creating out-of-bounds BIT_FIELD_REFs in 3
locations.
It fixes a SIGSEGV (triggered by gimple_fo
On Thu, Nov 28, 2013 at 12:23 AM, Tom de Vries wrote:
> On 27-11-13 07:20, Jeff Law wrote:
>>
>> On 11/26/13 14:10, Tom de Vries wrote:
>>>
>>> On 26-11-13 11:12, Richard Biener wrote:
On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 8:57 AM, Tom de Vries
wrote:
>
> Jason,
>
> This patch pr
> Ok if testing succeeds there but please leave out the checking bits.
Yes, they (perhaps unsurprisingly) trigger in Ada, I'll investigate.
--
Eric Botcazou
On Thu, Nov 28, 2013 at 4:39 PM, Eric Botcazou wrote:
>> Ok if testing succeeds there but please leave out the checking bits.
>
> Yes, they (perhaps unsurprisingly) trigger in Ada, I'll investigate.
PR59338, I have a fix in testing (restrict checking to non-aggregates).
Richard.
> --
> Eric Bot
> PR59338, I have a fix in testing (restrict checking to non-aggregates).
This will be sufficient for Ada I think, this occurs only when downcasting
because of the infamous VIEW_CONVERT_EXPRs used to implement it (yes, the ones
which carry the TYPE_ALIGN_OK flag).
--
Eric Botcazou
On Thu, Nov 28, 2013 at 12:23:43AM +0100, Tom de Vries wrote:
> Committed to trunk.
>
> Also ok for 4.8 branch? It's a 4.8/4.9 regression.
Ok, but I guess you need to adjust your patch for 4.8 (tree_to_*
and tree_fits_* to host_integerp/tree_low_cst), so please make sure
you test it before commit
On 03-12-13 13:49, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Thu, Nov 28, 2013 at 12:23:43AM +0100, Tom de Vries wrote:
Committed to trunk.
Also ok for 4.8 branch? It's a 4.8/4.9 regression.
Ok, but I guess you need to adjust your patch for 4.8 (tree_to_*
and tree_fits_* to host_integerp/tree_low_cst), so plea
12 matches
Mail list logo
