Re: [PING^2] [C++ PATCH] Add overflow checking to __cxa_vec_new[23]

2012-11-08 Thread Paolo Carlini
On 11/08/2012 10:54 AM, Florian Weimer wrote: I figured I could commit this as obvious, so I did that in r193326. Of course. Thanks again! Paolo. PS: as you may have noticed, I adjusted your new code to not throw, instead abort when __EXCEPTIONS is not defined: in general, we want the librar

Re: [PING^2] [C++ PATCH] Add overflow checking to __cxa_vec_new[23]

2012-11-08 Thread Florian Weimer
On 11/06/2012 05:01 PM, Florian Weimer wrote: On 11/06/2012 04:55 PM, Jason Merrill wrote: On 11/05/2012 12:52 PM, Florian Weimer wrote: +// Avoid use of none-overridable new/delete operators in shared Typo: that should be "non-overridable" Jason Thanks, this patch fixes both instances.

Re: [PING^2] [C++ PATCH] Add overflow checking to __cxa_vec_new[23]

2012-11-06 Thread Florian Weimer
On 11/06/2012 04:55 PM, Jason Merrill wrote: On 11/05/2012 12:52 PM, Florian Weimer wrote: +// Avoid use of none-overridable new/delete operators in shared Typo: that should be "non-overridable" Jason Thanks, this patch fixes both instances. -- Florian Weimer / Red Hat Product Security Tea

Re: [PING^2] [C++ PATCH] Add overflow checking to __cxa_vec_new[23]

2012-11-06 Thread Jason Merrill
On 11/05/2012 12:52 PM, Florian Weimer wrote: +// Avoid use of none-overridable new/delete operators in shared Typo: that should be "non-overridable" Jason

Re: [PING^2] [C++ PATCH] Add overflow checking to __cxa_vec_new[23]

2012-11-05 Thread Florian Weimer
On 11/02/2012 01:14 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote: On 11/02/2012 01:09 PM, Florian Weimer wrote: I looked at this again and made a new copy of the test case instead. It has been successfully tested on x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu. Is this okay for trunk? Looks very nice to me, and after all the issue s

Re: [PING^2] [C++ PATCH] Add overflow checking to __cxa_vec_new[23]

2012-11-02 Thread Paolo Carlini
On 11/02/2012 01:09 PM, Florian Weimer wrote: I looked at this again and made a new copy of the test case instead. It has been successfully tested on x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu. Is this okay for trunk? Looks very nice to me, and after all the issue seems rather simple. Let's say we wait another

Re: [PING^2] [C++ PATCH] Add overflow checking to __cxa_vec_new[23]

2012-11-02 Thread Florian Weimer
On 10/30/2012 05:30 PM, Florian Weimer wrote: On 10/30/2012 05:17 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote: Sorry, I don't know the code well enough to review your patch, but since I'm in CC, I still don't understand why, instead of adding a full libstdc++ testcase you are extending a C++ testcase, in old-deja

Re: [PING^2] [C++ PATCH] Add overflow checking to __cxa_vec_new[23]

2012-10-30 Thread Florian Weimer
On 10/30/2012 05:17 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote: Sorry, I don't know the code well enough to review your patch, but since I'm in CC, I still don't understand why, instead of adding a full libstdc++ testcase you are extending a C++ testcase, in old-deja even, normally considered legacy. AFAIK, th

Re: [PING^2] [C++ PATCH] Add overflow checking to __cxa_vec_new[23]

2012-10-30 Thread Paolo Carlini
Hi, Florian Weimer ha scritto: >Ping? > >Patch is at: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-08/msg01416.html Sorry, I don't know the code well enough to review your patch, but since I'm in CC, I still don't understand why, instead of adding a full libstdc++ testcase you are extending a C++ t

[PING^2] [C++ PATCH] Add overflow checking to __cxa_vec_new[23]

2012-10-30 Thread Florian Weimer
On 09/17/2012 12:54 PM, Florian Weimer wrote: On 09/17/2012 12:15 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote: Hi, On 09/17/2012 11:51 AM, Florian Weimer wrote: On 08/21/2012 12:37 PM, Florian Weimer wrote: I don't think there are any callers out there, but let's fix this for completeness. A compiler emitting c