https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67535
--- Comment #7 from Francois-Xavier Coudert ---
Author: fxcoudert
Date: Sat Sep 12 12:05:44 2015
New Revision: 227705
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=227705=gcc=rev
Log:
PR libfortran/67527
PR libfortran/67535
PR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67535
Francois-Xavier Coudert changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67535
--- Comment #6 from Vittorio Zecca ---
The cost of adding "if(base_name_len)" is two x86-64 machine instructions
cmpl$0, -20(%rbp)
je .L2
Six instructions follow then
call memcpy
which is not exactly a NOP
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67535
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67535
--- Comment #3 from Vittorio Zecca ---
(In reply to kargl from comment #1)
> What happens to performance? Simply making changes to
> make sanitizer happy seems rather questionable. It's clear
> from context that if base_name == NULL, then
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67535
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Steve Kargl from comment #4)
> It's undefined behavior to pass a NULL pointer into a function?
To a function that does not allow it? Yes.
Citing the C standard:
7.21.2.1/2:
"The memcpy
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67535
--- Comment #4 from Steve Kargl ---
On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 09:00:06AM +, zeccav at gmail dot com wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67535
>
> --- Comment #3 from Vittorio Zecca ---
> (In reply to kargl from comment #1)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67535
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
---
