On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 9:52 AM, Kai Tietz ktiet...@googlemail.com wrote:
Ok. Adjusted patch attached. Nevertheless we should use here
unsigned HWI instead of possible truncation to signed int. I admit
that it is unlikely to have more then 2^31 elements, but well
Ok for apply with
Sorry, missed to add needed hunk to disable pedantic warnings for this testcase.
Committed it as obvious fix at rev 218130.
Kai
Ok. Adjusted patch attached. Nevertheless we should use here
unsigned HWI instead of possible truncation to signed int. I admit
that it is unlikely to have more then 2^31 elements, but well
Ok for apply with adjusted ChangeLog?
Regards,
Kai
Index: constexpr.c
OK, thanks.
Jason
On 11/20/2014 02:48 PM, Kai Tietz wrote:
this issue fixes a type-overflow issue caused by trying to cast a UHWI
via tree_to_shwi.
As soon as value gets larger then SHWI_MAX, we get an error for it.
So we need to cast it via tree_to_uhwi, and then casting it to the signed
variant.
The problem
On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 8:48 PM, Kai Tietz ktiet...@googlemail.com wrote:
Hello,
this issue fixes a type-overflow issue caused by trying to cast a UHWI
via tree_to_shwi.
As soon as value gets larger then SHWI_MAX, we get an error for it.
So we need to cast it
via tree_to_uhwi, and then
Hello,
this issue fixes a type-overflow issue caused by trying to cast a UHWI
via tree_to_shwi.
As soon as value gets larger then SHWI_MAX, we get an error for it.
So we need to cast it
via tree_to_uhwi, and then casting it to the signed variant.
ChangeLog
2014-11-20 Kai Tietz
