https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96608
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||euloanty at live dot com
--- Comment #15
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96608
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |11.0
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96608
--- Comment #14 from David Malcolm ---
(In reply to David Malcolm from comment #7)
> (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #6)
> > What I mean is if you ever traversing a hashtable, the hash should not use
> > the value of a pointer because it
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96608
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|WAITING
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96608
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||brechtsanders at users dot
sourcef
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96608
--- Comment #11 from Pekka S ---
Hi,
that indeed does solve the build issue, though I only tried using
--disable-analyzer. I've been using a similar patch up until this point, but
retired my local patch in favour of this. Thanks!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96608
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96608
Pekka S changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||p...@gcc-bugzilla.mail.kaps
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96608
--- Comment #8 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to David Malcolm from comment #7)
> There are a few places I'm hashing based on trees, for constants and types.
> Is there a good way to hash those? (avoiding pointer values)
Maybe iterative_hash_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96608
--- Comment #7 from David Malcolm ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #6)
> What I mean is if you ever traversing a hashtable, the hash should not use
> the value of a pointer because it could change between runs.
Thanks.
Unfortunately
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96608
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to David Malcolm from comment #5)
> (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #4)
> > Do we ever transverse the hashtable that use symbolic_binding? If so using
> > the pointer value should almost ne
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96608
--- Comment #5 from David Malcolm ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #4)
> Do we ever transverse the hashtable that use symbolic_binding? If so using
> the pointer value should almost never use really.
Andrew: sorry, I'm having difficu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96608
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
Do we ever transverse the hashtable that use symbolic_binding? If so using the
pointer value should almost never use really.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96608
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||trass3r at gmail dot com
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96608
--- Comment #2 from Markus Böck ---
Don't worry there's no rush! It's the master branch after all. Just wanted to
make sure people are aware of it as soon as possible.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96608
--- Comment #1 from David Malcolm ---
Thanks for filing this; sorry for not fixing this today, I hope to get to this
early next week.
If you need a temporary workaround to unbreak your build, the analyzer code can
be disabled altogether at confi
16 matches
Mail list logo
