Hi Ian,
Sorry to bother you, but I have another libiberty demangler resource
exhaustion prevention patch to present. This one is for:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87241
Jonathan Wakely reported that __cxa_demanlge() was returning a -2
result, but I did not see this. Ins
On Wed, Dec 12, 2018 at 6:29 AM Nick Clifton wrote:
>
> Sorry to bother you, but I have another libiberty demangler resource
> exhaustion prevention patch to present. This one is for:
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87241
>
> Jonathan Wakely reported that __cxa_demanlge() w
Hi Jason,
> This issue also will be resolved by disabling or removing the old
> demangling code, which I haven't seen anyone argue against.
Doh - of course. I withdraw my patch and I hope that yours will go in soon.
Cheers
Nick
Hi Ian,
*sigh* 5 minutes after sending the patch for this PR, I realised that
I had made a mistake. I should have conditionalized the limit on the
number of supported qualifiers, so that the check is only made if we
have resource limits enabled. Like this:
Cheers
Nick
Index: libib
On Wed, Dec 12, 2018 at 3:40 AM Nick Clifton wrote:
>
> *sigh* 5 minutes after sending the patch for this PR, I realised that
>I had made a mistake. I should have conditionalized the limit on the
>number of supported qualifiers, so that the check is only made if we
>have resource li
Hi Ian,
> I thought we were removing the old demangling schemes?
Doh! yes, I totally forgot. So I will withdraw this patch in favour of
Jason's.
Cheers
Nick
