[Bug tree-optimization/71831] __builtin_object_size poor results with no optimization

2016-09-01 Thread msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71831 --- Comment #9 from Martin Sebor --- Author: msebor Date: Fri Sep 2 02:14:50 2016 New Revision: 239953 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=239953=gcc=rev Log: PR tree-optimization/71831 - __builtin_object_size poor results with no

[Bug tree-optimization/71831] __builtin_object_size poor results with no optimization

2016-09-01 Thread msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71831 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug tree-optimization/71831] __builtin_object_size poor results with no optimization

2016-08-19 Thread msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71831 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED Last reconfirmed|

[Bug tree-optimization/71831] __builtin_object_size poor results with no optimization

2016-07-12 Thread msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71831 --- Comment #7 from Martin Sebor --- To elaborate on the use case: my immediate need for it is to detect at compile time possible buffer overflow in calls to sprintf (the -Wformat-length patch) without _FORTIFY_SOURCE that not all projects use

[Bug tree-optimization/71831] __builtin_object_size poor results with no optimization

2016-07-12 Thread msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71831 --- Comment #6 from Martin Sebor --- I meant comment #0.

[Bug tree-optimization/71831] __builtin_object_size poor results with no optimization

2016-07-12 Thread msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71831 --- Comment #5 from Martin Sebor --- Yes, I understand and agree with that. What I envision is handling just the basic cases like the ones in comment #2 (and similar) that don't involve the objsz machinery. My -Wformat-length patch (bug 49905)

[Bug tree-optimization/71831] __builtin_object_size poor results with no optimization

2016-07-12 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71831 --- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek --- One of the reasons is that -O0 should mean short compile time. If you schedule the objsz pass at -O0, you might slow down the compilation, especially on larger functions. The glibc headers won't use it at

[Bug tree-optimization/71831] __builtin_object_size poor results with no optimization

2016-07-12 Thread msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71831 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED Resolution|INVALID

[Bug tree-optimization/71831] __builtin_object_size poor results with no optimization

2016-07-12 Thread rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71831 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug tree-optimization/71831] __builtin_object_size poor results with no optimization

2016-07-11 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71831 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #1