function (since
every function has main as its direct or indirect caller).
Tested on powerpc64le and x86_64 Linux.
Martin
The ChangeLog entries for gcc and testsuite:
2015-06-11 Martin Sebor mse...@redhat.com
* c-family/c.opt (-Wbuiltin-address): New warning option.
* doc
OK. You can go ahead and commit the libbacktrace fix.
Committed in r224402.
Let's hold off on the testsuite fixes until we've got the sanitizer
libbacktrace fixes installed.
Okay.
Martin
2015-07-04 Martin Sebor mse...@redhat.com
pr c/66516
* tree.h (DECL_IS_GCC_BUILTIN): New macro.
* doc/extend.texi (Other Builtins): Document when the address of
a built-in function can be taken.
gcc/c/ChangeLog
2015-07-04 Martin Sebor mse...@redhat.com
pr c/66516
* c-tree.h
This is a small change to diagnose unsafe calls to
__builtin_{frame,return}_address (with an argument 2) than
tend to return bogus values or lead to crashes at runtime.
A review would be appreciated.
Thanks
Martin
On 06/26/2015 05:49 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
Is this patch okay for trunk
.
Bootstrapped and tested on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu.
Martin
2015-06-28 Martin Sebor mse...@redhat.com
pr c/66516
* tree.h (DECL_IS_GCC_BUILTIN): New macro.
* doc/extend.texi (Other Builtins): Document when the address of
a builtin function can be taken.
2015-06-28 Martin Sebor mse
On 05/21/2015 02:05 PM, Sandra Loosemore wrote:
On 05/21/2015 01:19 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
2015-05-21 Martin Sebor mse...@redhat.com
* extend.texi (Return Address): Clarify possible effects
of calling the functions with non-zero arguments.
diff --git a/gcc/doc/extend.texi b/gcc
me to figure out this is by design.
Does anyone have any concerns with this update or is it okay
to check in?
Thanks
Martin
2015-05-21 Martin Sebor mse...@redhat.com
* extend.texi (Return Address): Clarify possible effects
of calling the functions with non-zero arguments.
diff
On 05/22/2015 09:13 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Fri, May 22, 2015 at 03:59:47PM +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
+ alignas(alignof(_Tp2)) unsigned char _M_storage[sizeof(_Tp)];
Is alignof(_Tp2) always the same as alignof(_Tp2::_M_t) on all targets
(I mean, won't some target align the
On 08/03/2015 05:55 AM, Jan-Benedict Glaw wrote:
On Sun, 2015-08-02 17:15:27 -0600, Martin Sebor mse...@gmail.com wrote:
OK for the trunk. Sorry for the delay.
Thank you. Committed in revision 226480.
...und breaks native builds. When doing builds using config-list.mk, I
first build a GCC
In the debian reproducible builds project we have considered several
options to address this issue. We considered redefining the __DATE__ and
__TIME__ defines by command line flags passed to gcc, but as you say,
that triggers warnings, which could become errors when building with
-Werror and thus
On 07/28/2015 09:38 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
Sorry about the slow response on IRC today, I got distracted onto
another issue and forgot to check back. What I started to write:
No problem.
I'm exploring your suggestion to see if the back end could emit the
diagnostics. But I'm not sure it
OK for the trunk. Sorry for the delay.
Thank you. Committed in revision 226480.
Martin
I suspect the back end or even the middle end route isn't going to
work even if there was enough context to diagnose the problem
expressions because some of them will have been optimized away by then
(e.g., 'if ( __builtin_foo != 0)' is optimized into if (1) by gimple).
I was thinking that if
gcc/ChangeLog
2015-07-27 Martin Sebor mse...@redhat.com
* c-family/c.opt (-Wbuiltin-address): New warning option.
* doc/invoke.texi (Wbuiltin-address): Document it.
* doc/extend.texi (__builtin_frame_addrress, __builtin_return_addrress):
Typoes (rr).
Fixed.
- rtx
On 08/05/2015 10:02 AM, Jiong Wang wrote:
On 28/07/15 16:44, Martin Sebor wrote:
Attached is an updated patch with the changes above.
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog
2015-07-28 Martin Sebormse...@redhat.com
* g++.dg/Wframe-address-in-Wall.C: New test.
* g++.dg/Wframe-address.C: New
patch
to issue a warning for all builtin_xxx_address calls with any
non-zero argument.
Martin
gcc/ChangeLog
2015-07-27 Martin Sebor mse...@redhat.com
* c-family/c.opt (-Wbuiltin-address): New warning option.
* doc/invoke.texi (Wbuiltin-address): Document it.
* doc/extend.texi
On 07/14/2015 09:18 AM, Marek Polacek wrote:
Code such as if (i == i) is hardly ever desirable, so we should be able
to warn about this to prevent dumb mistakes.
I haven't tried the patch or even studied it very carefully but
I wonder if this is also the case when i is declared volatile.
I.e.,
On 07/22/2015 01:06 PM, Marek Polacek wrote:
On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 12:43:53PM -0600, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 07/14/2015 09:18 AM, Marek Polacek wrote:
Code such as if (i == i) is hardly ever desirable, so we should be able
to warn about this to prevent dumb mistakes.
I haven't tried
[CC Jason since the patch also touches the C++ front end]
The updated patch is here:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-07/msg00258.html
Thanks
Martin
On 07/04/2015 04:32 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
I don't think c_validate_addressable is a good name - given that it's
called for lots
Still looking for a review of this small patch to help detect
potentially unsafe calls to __builtin_{frame,return}_address
(with an argument 2) that tend to either return bogus values
or lead to crashes at runtime.
The problem the function can cause was originally reported in
pr8743 and
Ping #5.
On 07/13/2015 09:33 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
Still looking for a review of this small patch to help detect
potentially unsafe calls to __builtin_{frame,return}_address
(with an argument 2) that tend to either return bogus values
or lead to crashes at runtime.
The problem the function
On 07/14/2015 09:01 AM, Jason Merrill wrote:
I wonder if it would make sense to handle this when we actually try to
emit a reference to one of these functions in the back end, rather than
in many places through the front end.
If it's going to stay in the front end, the C and C++ front-ends
On 10/22/2015 03:47 PM, Joseph Myers wrote:
On Thu, 22 Oct 2015, Martin Sebor wrote:
While fixing up the ChangeLogs for the commit (as requested below)
I noticed that a number of new options have been added with help
text with no period at the end. The attached patch fixes those
up and adds
://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-10/msg02224.html
gcc/ChangeLog:
2015-10-22 Martin Sebor <mse...@redhat.com>
PR driver/68043
* config/i386/i386.opt: Add missing periods to the ends of sentences.
* config/msp430/msp430.opt: Same.
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
2015-10-22 Martin Sebor <mse...@r
[CC Jason]
When you have a chance, the patch is at the link below for review:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-10/msg02001.html
On 10/20/2015 01:57 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
Attached is a slightly updated patch that tweaks the diagnostic
messages to avoid assuming the English punctuation
[CC Jason]
The patch is at the link below:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-10/msg01803.html
Thanks
On 10/19/2015 12:50 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
This is a patch for two C++ bugs:
67913 - new expression with negative size not diagnosed
67927 - array new expression with excessive
On 10/23/2015 11:45 AM, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
On 10/23/2015 06:50 PM, Joseph Myers wrote:
On Fri, 23 Oct 2015, Martin Sebor wrote:
But now that I'm re-reading the answer above I see that Joseph
was suggesting that a5_7[5][0] should be diagnosed when the patch
accepts it as an extension. I
[Sending to the right list this time]
The documentation of the -Q --help=optimizers options leads some
to expect that when options are reported as enabled imply the
corresponding optimization will take place. (See the following
question on gcc-help:
in this
message.
Attached is patch 1 with the changes to opts.c you mention
below, adding periods to the help output printed by the driver,
and some tweaks to the test suite, plus changelogs for both
sets.
Martin
gcc/ChangeLog:
2015-10-21 Martin Sebor <mse...@redhat.com>
PR driver
On 10/23/2015 05:13 AM, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
On 10/21/2015 12:10 AM, Joseph Myers wrote:
On Tue, 20 Oct 2015, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
How about
[2].a
and
[2].b
I don't think either is valid.
typedef struct FA5_7 {
int i;
char a5_7 [5][7];
} FA5_7;
__builtin_offsetof
On 10/22/2015 04:24 AM, Eric Botcazou wrote:
Martin,
some subdirectories have their own ChangeLog file so you need to move...
2015-10-21 Martin Sebor <mse...@redhat.com>
PR driver/68043
* opts.c (undocumented_msg, use_diagnosed_msg): New g
On 11/10/2015 09:36 AM, Marek Polacek wrote:
While both C and C++ FEs are able to reject e.g.
int a[__SIZE_MAX__ / sizeof(int)];
they are accepting code such as
int (*a)[__SIZE_MAX__ / sizeof(int)];
As Joseph pointed out, any construction of a non-VLA type whose size is half or
more of the
On 11/06/2015 05:50 AM, Andreas Schwab wrote:
I see this failure on m68k:
FAIL: g++.dg/warn/Wplacement-new-size.C -std=gnu++11 (test for excess errors)
Excess errors:
/daten/aranym/gcc/gcc-20151106/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/warn/Wplacement-new-size.C:189:19:
warning: placement new constructing an
Oh, and we could also be more informative and print the size of an array,
or the number of elements, as clang does.
Yes, that's pretty nice. It helps but the diagnostic must point at
the right dimension. GCC often just points at the whole expression
or some token within it.
void* foo ()
{
On 11/13/2015 08:21 AM, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 11/13/2015 05:56 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
This is a non-conforming implementation of
https://rawgit.com/cplusplus/fundamentals-ts/v2/fundamentals-ts.html#reflection.src_loc
It doesn't provide any column numbers, and fails to meet
On 11/13/2015 05:56 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
This is a non-conforming implementation of
https://rawgit.com/cplusplus/fundamentals-ts/v2/fundamentals-ts.html#reflection.src_loc
It doesn't provide any column numbers, and fails to meet the
requirement that using current() in a NSDMI will refer
On 11/11/2015 02:48 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
As described in the PR, we have operator~ overloads defined for
enumeration types which produce values outside the range of valid
values for the type. In C++11 that can be trivially solved by giving
the enumeration types a fixed underlying type, but
On 11/12/2015 10:08 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 12/11/15 08:48 -0700, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 11/11/2015 02:48 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
As described in the PR, we have operator~ overloads defined for
enumeration types which produce values outside the range of valid
values for the type. In C
Martin Sebor <mse...@redhat.com>
PR c++/68208
* init.c (perform_member_init): Use location of member-initializer
in -Wself-init rather than that of the ctor.
gcc/testsuite/
2015-11-11 Martin Sebor <mse...@redhat.com>
PR c++/68208
* b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/warn/Winit-self-4.C: New
Attached is a patch fixing the ICE caused by a prior change of mine:
https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs/gcc?view=revision=230081
Tested on x86_64, committing to trunk as per Jason via IRC.
Martin
gcc/ChangeLog:
2015-11-17 Martin Sebor <mse...@redhat.com>
PR c++/68308
* cp/
On 11/07/2015 04:38 PM, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 10:10:44PM +, Joseph Myers wrote:
typedef struct FA5_7 {
int i;
char a5_7 [5][7];
} FA5_7;
__builtin_offsetof (FA5_7, a5_7 [0][7]), // { dg-warning "index" }
__builtin_offsetof (FA5_7, a5_7
other cleanup. Attached is an updated
patch.
Tested on x86_64 by botstrapping C and C++ and running make check.
Martin
gcc ChangeLog
2015-11-04 Martin Sebor <mse...@redhat.com>
PR c++/67942
* invoke.texi (-Wplacement-new): Document new option.
* gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/warn/Wpla
On 11/03/2015 03:19 AM, Alexander Monakov wrote:
On Thu, 22 Oct 2015, Martin Sebor wrote:
[Sending to the right list this time]
The documentation of the -Q --help=optimizers options leads some
to expect that when options are reported as enabled imply the
corresponding optimization will take
I guess this is a case where I could say either "I wrote the patch" or
"I requested changes to a patch in review"; in the latter case I can
approve it. Joseph seems on board with what we've discussed, so I'd say
please wait until Tuesday for objections then commit.
I didn't get to committing
On 11/04/2015 06:09 PM, Sandra Loosemore wrote:
On 11/04/2015 04:52 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
gcc/ChangeLog:
2015-11-04 Martin Sebor <mse...@redhat.com>
* opts.c (print_filtered_help): Indicate when an optimization option
is disabled as a result of -O0.
* doc/invoke.texi: F
On 11/05/2015 10:10 AM, Joseph Myers wrote:
On Thu, 5 Nov 2015, Martin Sebor wrote:
optimiziation. We seem to have consensus that even though there
might be exceptions (do we know what some of them are?) the vast
majority optimizations that have -fxxx options are in fact not
performed at -O0
On 11/05/2015 03:48 AM, Alexander Monakov wrote:
On Thu, 5 Nov 2015, Joseph Myers wrote:
On Wed, 4 Nov 2015, Martin Sebor wrote:
Improving the compiler output is a good idea. The attached patch
prints "[disabled by -O0]" instead of "[enabled]" when an optimization
option i
If we use gcc_checking_assert it won't fire in release builds; let's go
with that.
Okay. Attached is an updated patch with that change.
Martin
gcc ChangeLog
2015-11-05 Martin Sebor <mse...@redhat.com>
PR c++/67942
* invoke.texi (-Wplacement-new): Document new option.
On 11/05/2015 11:07 AM, Joseph Myers wrote:
On Thu, 5 Nov 2015, Martin Sebor wrote:
There are several options marked Optimization that are actually matters of
language semantics that I don't think have anything to do with -O options,
e.g. -fexceptions and -fcx-limited-range. The Optimization
On 11/02/2015 09:55 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 10/26/2015 10:06 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
+ if (TREE_CONSTANT (maybe_constant_value (outer_nelts)))
+{
+ if (tree_int_cst_lt (max_outer_nelts_tree, outer_nelts))
maybe_constant_value may return a constant, but that doesn't mean
I share your concerns, but I'm also sympathetic to the changes that
the Taller Technologies team are trying to make, to allow libstdc++ to
be more useful in exception-free systems.
At the very least the patch to doc/xml/manual/configure.xml must
document that this option enables behaviour that
Besides violating the requirement of the C++ standard, replacing
Could you please point us to the relevant section where this behavior
is enforced? We couldn't find it so far.
The Required behavior of the nothrow operator new reads:
This nothrow version of operator new returns a pointer
On 11/03/2015 05:35 AM, Aurelio Remonda wrote:
Currently, whenever operator new (std::nothrow) fails to allocate memory, it'll
check if there is a new-handler function available. If there is, it'll call
the handler and then try to allocate again. Otherwise, it'll return a null
pointer.
This
On 11/03/2015 04:08 PM, Mike Stump wrote:
On Nov 3, 2015, at 1:10 PM, Martin Sebor <mse...@gmail.com> wrote:
The "as if" requirement implies that any observable effects of
"the (possibly replaced) ordinary version" must be preserved.
The repeated calls to the new hand
On 11/02/2015 07:40 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 10/26/2015 09:48 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
+ while (TREE_CODE (oper) == NOP_EXPR)
+oper = TREE_OPERAND (oper, 0);
This is STRIP_NOPS.
+ to placement new is not checked since it's unknownwhat it might
Missing space.
+ else
Ping. Thanks in advance for a review.
On 10/22/2015 08:12 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
[Sending to the right list this time]
The documentation of the -Q --help=optimizers options leads some
to expect that when options are reported as enabled imply the
corresponding optimization will take place
On 11/05/2015 10:09 AM, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
On Thu, Nov 05, 2015 at 08:58:25AM -0700, Martin Sebor wrote:
I don't think that reiterating in a condensed form what the manual
doesn't make clear in many more words will help. First, even users
who do find the relevant text in the manual often
On 11/05/2015 11:13 AM, Jason Merrill wrote:
OK, thanks.
I'm afraid the last patch that I just committed breaks libstdc++
bootstrap with the following error:
/home/msebor/scm/fsf/gcc-svn/libstdc++-v3/src/c++98/ios_init.cc: In
static member function ‘static bool
On 11/05/2015 04:41 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 11/05/2015 11:13 AM, Jason Merrill wrote:
OK, thanks.
I'm afraid the last patch that I just committed breaks libstdc++
bootstrap with the following error:
I committed a slightly more robust fix that avoids assuming that
either the size
On 11/05/2015 04:30 PM, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
On Thu, Nov 05, 2015 at 02:04:47PM -0700, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 11/05/2015 10:09 AM, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
On Thu, Nov 05, 2015 at 08:58:25AM -0700, Martin Sebor wrote:
I don't think that reiterating in a condensed form what the manual
On 11/04/2015 09:27 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 11/04/2015 07:15 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
There was a lot of discussion of C++ aliasing rules at the recent
meeting; we really seem to be moving in the direction of being stricter
about which union member is active. So I think we do want
On 11/06/2015 05:55 AM, Rainer Orth wrote:
Martin Sebor <mse...@gmail.com> writes:
If we use gcc_checking_assert it won't fire in release builds; let's go
with that.
Okay. Attached is an updated patch with that change.
Unfortunately, this breaks i386-pc-solaris2.10 bootstrap:
/vol/g
in the future. If there is a page
on the Wiki or somewhere with best practices or recommended steps
that someone knows about, I'd be grateful for a pointer.
Again, sorry for the breakage.
Martin
2015-11-05 Martin Sebor <mse...@redhat.com>
PR c++/67942
* invok
On 10/13/2015 04:47 PM, Arkadiusz Drabczyk wrote:
* gcc/doc/extend.texi: documentation says that functions declared
`inline' would not be integrated if they are called before they are
defined or if they are recursive. Both of these statements is now
false as shown in examples on Bugzilla.
It
On 10/16/2015 06:27 AM, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
On 10/09/2015 04:55 AM, Martin Sebor wrote:
Gcc attempts to diagnose invalid offsetof expressions whose member
designator is an array element with an out-of-bounds index. The
logic in the function that does this detection is incomplete, leading
On 10/14/2015 11:24 AM, Joseph Myers wrote:
On Wed, 14 Oct 2015, Martin Sebor wrote:
+ /* For undocumented options that are aliases for other
+options that are documented, print the other option's
+help and name. */
+ help = cl_options
The patch is at the following link:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-10/msg00915.html
Martin
On 10/08/2015 08:55 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
Gcc attempts to diagnose invalid offsetof expressions whose member
designator is an array element with an out-of-bounds index. The
logic
to expect a meaningful error message.
Once this patch is approved and committed a follow-up patch should
document the implementation-defined maximum to the manual.
Martin
gcc/cp/ChangeLog
2015-10-19 Martin Sebor <mse...@redhat.com>
PR c++/67913
PR c++/67927
* call.c (build_operator_ne
On 10/20/2015 10:57 AM, Joseph Myers wrote:
On Tue, 20 Oct 2015, Martin Sebor wrote:
An array subscript is out of range, even if an object is apparently
accessible with the given subscript (as in the lvalue expression
a[1][7] given the declaration int a[4][5]) (6.5.6).
Just-past
On 10/20/2015 07:20 AM, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
On 10/16/2015 09:34 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
Thank you for the review. Attached is an updated patch that hopefully
addresses all your comments. I ran the check_GNU_style.sh script on
it to make sure I didn't miss something. I've also added replies
On 10/20/2015 09:48 AM, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
On 10/20/2015 05:31 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 10/20/2015 07:20 AM, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
On 10/16/2015 09:34 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
Thank you for the review. Attached is an updated patch that hopefully
addresses all your comments. I ran
Attached is a slightly updated patch that tweaks the diagnostic
messages to avoid assuming the English punctuation, and adds
a few test cases exercising the text of the diagnostics.
Martin
On 10/13/2015 11:22 AM, Martin Sebor wrote:
C++ placement new expression is susceptible to buffer
On 10/14/2015 03:42 PM, Arkadiusz Drabczyk wrote:
On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 08:36:43AM -0600, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 10/13/2015 04:47 PM, Arkadiusz Drabczyk wrote:
* gcc/doc/extend.texi: documentation says that functions declared
`inline' would not be integrated if they are called before
s -A
2015-10-14 Martin Sebor <mse...@redhat.com>
* options.c (print_filtered_help): Print help for aliased
option and its name instead of undocumented text for
undocumented options.
diff --git a/gcc/opts.c b/gcc/opts.c
index 2bbf653..e441924 100644
--- a/gcc/
On 10/14/2015 01:40 PM, Joseph Myers wrote:
On Wed, 14 Oct 2015, Martin Sebor wrote:
IMO, printing the aliased option's help text makes using the output
easier for users who find the undocumented option first, in that
they don't then have to go look for the one that does have
documentation, so
Gcc attempts to diagnose invalid offsetof expressions whose member
designator is an array element with an out-of-bounds index. The
logic in the function that does this detection is incomplete, leading
to false negatives. Since the result of the expression in these cases
can be surprising, this
Gcc attempts to diagnose invalid offsetof expressions whose member
designator is an array element with an out-of-bounds index. The
logic in the function that does this detection is incomplete, leading
to false negatives. Since the result of the expression in these cases
can be surprising, this
Conference on Distributed Computing Systems (ICDCS),
2011 http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp==5961725
gcc ChangeLog
2015-10-12 Martin Sebor <mse...@redhat.com>
PR c++/67942
* invoke.texi (-Wplacement-new): Document new option.
* gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/warn/Wplaceme
On 09/01/2015 11:29 AM, Joseph Myers wrote:
On Tue, 1 Sep 2015, Martin Sebor wrote:
Attached is an updated patch that avoids diagnosing taking the address
of implicitly declared library builtins like abs, bootstrapped and
tested on ppc64le with no regressions.
The tweak below was added
On 09/03/2015 04:58 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
This change would allow including to be used to check for
__GLIBCXX__ and detect whether youre using libstdc++ or not. Howard
Hinnant recommends including that header for libc++ because it has no
other effects in C++.
We could make every header
You've committed empty gcc/builtins.c.orig file, I've removed it, but
please be more careful next time.
And c/ or cp/ prefixes don't belong to c/ChangeLog or cp/ChangeLog
(also fixed).
Jakub
Thank you for fixing that up.
Martin
On 09/02/2015 09:29 AM, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 09/01/2015 06:25 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
Having now made this change, I don't think the added complexity
of three declarations and two trivial definitions of the new
c_decl_implicit function across five files is an improvement,
Three
, the more descriptive
C_DECL_IMPLICIT that exists for this purpose is not available (it's
defined in c/c-tree.h).
+ && (c_dialect_cxx () || !DECL_LANG_FLAG_2 (expr))
Martin
gcc/ChangeLog
2015-08-31 Martin Sebor <mse...@redhat.com>
PR c/66516
* doc/extend.texi (Other Builtins):
On 09/08/2015 11:14 AM, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
I also took the liberty of rewriting the list of new command-line
options to be less repetitive.
...
a negative value.
-A new command-line option -Wshift-overflow has been
- added for the C and C++ compilers, which warns
On 09/10/2015 10:38 AM, Florian Weimer wrote:
On 09/10/2015 06:30 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 09/09/2015 09:58 AM, Florian Weimer wrote:
On 09/08/2015 05:45 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
I doubt we can achieve the complexity goals in all cases. I expect
that
for (int i = 0; i < 1;
On 09/09/2015 09:58 AM, Florian Weimer wrote:
On 09/08/2015 05:45 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
I doubt we can achieve the complexity goals in all cases. I expect that
for (int i = 0; i < 1; ++i) {
vector[i];
}
is optimized away in default mode, but with _GLIBCXX_ASSERTIONS, it is
On 09/12/2015 04:09 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 11 September 2015 at 18:39, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 09/11/2015 08:21 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
Solaris 10 doesn't follow POSIX in accepting a null pointer as the
second argument to realpath(), so allocate a buffer for it.
FWIW, the NULL
On 09/12/2015 12:07 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 09/12/2015 04:09 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 11 September 2015 at 18:39, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 09/11/2015 08:21 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
Solaris 10 doesn't follow POSIX in accepting a null pointer as the
second argument to realpath(), so
On 09/10/2015 02:28 PM, David Malcolm wrote:
This patch adds a test plugin that recurses down an expression tree,
printing diagnostics showing the ranges of each node in the tree.
Screenshot:
https://dmalcolm.fedorapeople.org/gcc/2015-09-09/show-trees.html
This needs a linker hack, since
On 09/11/2015 08:21 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
Solaris 10 doesn't follow POSIX in accepting a null pointer as the
second argument to realpath(), so allocate a buffer for it.
FWIW, the NULL requirement is new in Issue 7. In Issue 6, the behavior
is implementation-defined, and before then it was
+void foo(void *bar) __attribute__((nonnull(1)));
+
+void foo(void *bar) { if (!bar) abort(); } /* { dg-warning "null" "argument ‘bar’
compared to NULL" } */
This looks like a very useful enhancement. Since the change is limited
to build_binary_op in the two front ends I wonder if the warning
On 09/15/2015 10:52 AM, Marek Polacek wrote:
Currently, when one writes a code that is missing the struct/union/enum
tag, we get less than ideal error message. The following patch improves
the situation a bit by giving a hint to the user.
I can't count the number of times I've made this
On 09/16/2015 09:59 AM, Marek Polacek wrote:
This patch implements a new warning, -Wduplicated-cond. It warns for
code such as
if (x)
// ...
else if (x)
// ...
As usual, I like this improvement. I think it's worth extending
to conditional expressions (e.g., x ? f() : x ? g()
Tested powerpc64le-linux, x86_64-dragonfly4.1 and x86_64-netbsd5.1,
do you see any reason not to commit this for now?
I see only a couple of potential problems: a missing test for
PATH_MAX in the unlikely event it's not defined (or is obscenely
large), and a missing check to avoid infinite
On 09/16/2015 04:17 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 16/09/15 16:04 -0600, Martin Sebor wrote:
Tested powerpc64le-linux, x86_64-dragonfly4.1 and x86_64-netbsd5.1,
do you see any reason not to commit this for now?
I see only a couple of potential problems: a missing test for
PATH_MAX
It turns out I was wrong about BSD traditionally supporting
realpath(path, NULL), it first appeared in these relatively recent
versions:
FreeBSD 9.0
OpenBSD 5.0
NetBSD 6.1
Like Solaris 11, some of them still define _POSIX_VERSION=200112L even
though they support passing NULL, so we could
On 09/17/2015 05:16 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 16/09/15 17:42 -0600, Martin Sebor wrote:
I see now the first exists test will detect symlink loops in
the original path. But I'm not convinced there isn't a corner
case that's subject to a TOCTOU race condition between the first
exists test
The patch currently issues a false positive for the test case
below. I suspect the chain might need to be cleared after each
condition that involves a side-effect.
int foo (int a)
{
if (a) return 1; else if (++a) return 2; else if (a) return 3;
return 0;
}
But the last
On 09/15/2015 02:32 AM, Mark Wielaard wrote:
On Mon, 2015-09-14 at 21:37 -0600, Martin Sebor wrote:
+void foo(void *bar) __attribute__((nonnull(1)));
+
+void foo(void *bar) { if (!bar) abort(); } /* { dg-warning "null" "argument ‘bar’
compared to NULL" } */
This look
On 09/29/2015 10:15 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 05:10:20PM +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
That looks wrong to me, you only restore errno if you don't throw :(.
If you throw, then errno might remain 0, which is IMHO undesirable.
My thinking was that a failed conversion that
301 - 400 of 3995 matches
Mail list logo
