If the FIXME was a future thing, then this is OK with the nits fixed. If
the FIXME was a marker for something you intended to address now and
just forgot, then we either need another iteration or a follow-up patch
depending on the severity of the FIXME in your mind.
As we discussed privately,
On 12/14/2016 09:41 AM, Martin Sebor wrote:
- if (i < 0)
+ if (HOST_WIDE_INT_MIN == i)
nit. I think most folks would probably prefer this as
if (i == HOST_WIDE_INT_MIN).
HOST_WIDE_INT_MIN is a constant and when we can write an expression in
either order variable OP const is the
So I've been going back and forth on whether or not to suggest a slight
change in how we're working.
Specifically the practice of lumping multiple fixes into a single patch
-- I realize that it's usually the case that you're finding related
issues so there's a desire to address them as a group.
On 12/02/2016 05:36 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
Bug 78608 - gimple-ssa-sprintf.c:570:17: runtime error: negation
of -9223372036854775808 cannot be represented in type 'long int'
points out an integer overflow bug in the pass caught by ubsan.
The bug was due to negating a number without checking for
On 12/13/2016 04:49 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
Ping: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-12/msg00262.html
(I would have almost forgotten about this if it weren't for bug
78786. While working on a fix for it I keep thinking that some
of the changes I'm making look like they should have already
Ping: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-12/msg00262.html
(I would have almost forgotten about this if it weren't for bug
78786. While working on a fix for it I keep thinking that some
of the changes I'm making look like they should have already been
made.)
Thanks
Martin
On 12/02/2016
Bug 78608 - gimple-ssa-sprintf.c:570:17: runtime error: negation
of -9223372036854775808 cannot be represented in type 'long int'
points out an integer overflow bug in the pass caught by ubsan.
The bug was due to negating a number without checking for equality
to INT_MIN.
In addition, my recent
