https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60546
Lauri Kasanen cand at gmx dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||cand at gmx dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60546
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60546
--- Comment #22 from linzj manjian2006 at gmail dot com ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #21)
What is not satisfying?
struct QualifiedNameComponents {
StringImpl* m_prefix;
StringImpl* m_localName;
StringImpl*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60546
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60546
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 32370
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=32370action=edit
patch to fix store motion issue
Fixing that doesn't fix it (or my fix doesn't work ;)).
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60546
--- Comment #5 from linzj manjian2006 at gmail dot com ---
Well,valgind do detect invalid memory usage.That's not an asan problem then.
Since it effects from 4.8,does that mean 4.8 is not secure any more?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60546
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Meanwhile -fno-tree-dse also fixes this but it only prevents mayhem
downstream
(Jakub bisected this to a revision that exposed the issue, r158047). You have
to disable both tree
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60546
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60546
--- Comment #8 from linzj manjian2006 at gmail dot com ---
I don't think it can be mark as resolved-invalid that fast.This code is used by
WebKit for a long time and no one would say this is an illegal algorithm.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60546
--- Comment #9 from linzj manjian2006 at gmail dot com ---
If this is an illegal expression, it should be reported at compile time,not
generating a wrong code.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60546
linzj manjian2006 at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60546
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60546
--- Comment #12 from linzj manjian2006 at gmail dot com ---
Alright,should I change the algorithm to avoid this bug?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60546
--- Comment #13 from rguenther at suse dot de rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Mon, 17 Mar 2014, manjian2006 at gmail dot com wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60546
--- Comment #12 from linzj manjian2006 at gmail dot com ---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60546
--- Comment #14 from linzj manjian2006 at gmail dot com ---
Well,but I have not figured out what goes wrong in the hashing algorithm. Would
you point it out.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60546
Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60546
--- Comment #16 from linzj manjian2006 at gmail dot com ---
Yes,that may work.But what exactly go wrong in the original algorithm? I can't
change a correct algorithm just because it volatiles TBBA and make the compiler
generate wrong code.Because
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60546
--- Comment #17 from rguenther at suse dot de rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Mon, 17 Mar 2014, manjian2006 at gmail dot com wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60546
--- Comment #16 from linzj manjian2006 at gmail dot com ---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60546
--- Comment #18 from linzj manjian2006 at gmail dot com ---
(In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #17)
On Mon, 17 Mar 2014, manjian2006 at gmail dot com wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60546
--- Comment #16 from
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60546
--- Comment #19 from Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to linzj from comment #18)
(In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #17)
On Mon, 17 Mar 2014, manjian2006 at gmail dot com wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60546
--- Comment #20 from linzj manjian2006 at gmail dot com ---
That's really not satisfying. I am going to dig deeper.Check the expanded RTL.
21 matches
Mail list logo
