On 2/7/19 6:27 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 2/7/19 4:00 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 2/7/19 1:57 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
+ /* The original numeric size as seen in the source code after
+ any substitution and before conversion to size_t. */
I don't think this should mention substitution. W
On 2/7/19 4:00 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 2/7/19 1:57 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
+ /* The original numeric size as seen in the source code after
+ any substitution and before conversion to size_t. */
I don't think this should mention substitution. With that tweak the C++
changes are OK.
On 2/7/19 1:57 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
+ /* The original numeric size as seen in the source code after
+ any substitution and before conversion to size_t. */
I don't think this should mention substitution. With that tweak the C++
changes are OK.
Jason
On 2/7/19 9:10 AM, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 2/5/19 4:55 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 2/5/19 12:14 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 2/5/19 1:46 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 2/1/19 7:41 AM, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 1/31/19 5:49 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 1/30/19 3:15 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 1/29/19
On 2/5/19 4:55 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 2/5/19 12:14 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 2/5/19 1:46 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 2/1/19 7:41 AM, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 1/31/19 5:49 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 1/30/19 3:15 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 1/29/19 7:15 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
+ /* T
On 2/5/19 12:14 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 2/5/19 1:46 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 2/1/19 7:41 AM, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 1/31/19 5:49 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 1/30/19 3:15 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 1/29/19 7:15 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
+ /* Try to convert the original SIZE to a ssi
On 2/5/19 1:46 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 2/1/19 7:41 AM, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 1/31/19 5:49 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 1/30/19 3:15 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 1/29/19 7:15 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
+ /* Try to convert the original SIZE to a ssizetype. */
+ if (orig_size != error_
On 2/1/19 7:41 AM, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 1/31/19 5:49 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 1/30/19 3:15 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 1/29/19 7:15 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
+ /* Try to convert the original SIZE to a ssizetype. */
+ if (orig_size != error_mark_node
+ && !TYPE_UNSIGNED (
On 1/31/19 5:49 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 1/30/19 3:15 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 1/29/19 7:15 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
+ /* Try to convert the original SIZE to a ssizetype. */
+ if (orig_size != error_mark_node
+ && !TYPE_UNSIGNED (TREE_TYPE (orig_size)))
+ {
+
On 1/30/19 3:15 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 1/29/19 7:15 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
+ /* Try to convert the original SIZE to a ssizetype. */
+ if (orig_size != error_mark_node
+ && !TYPE_UNSIGNED (TREE_TYPE (orig_size)))
+ {
+ if (TREE_CODE (size) == INTEGER_CST
On 1/29/19 7:15 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
+ /* Try to convert the original SIZE to a ssizetype. */
+ if (orig_size != error_mark_node
+ && !TYPE_UNSIGNED (TREE_TYPE (orig_size)))
+ {
+ if (TREE_CODE (size) == INTEGER_CST
+ && tree_i
PR c++/87996 is a P2 regression reported in December about C++ error
messages for declarations of arrays larger than PTRDIFF_MAX saying
the sizes of the arrays are negative. GCC 7 says they're negative.
The attached patch corrects that by issuing messages that, besides
reflecting the correct sig
12 matches
Mail list logo
