On 05/06/2013 05:56 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 05/06/2013 08:46 AM, Florian Weimer wrote:
On 05/06/2013 02:39 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 05/06/2013 05:46 AM, Florian Weimer wrote:
Nice, this is simpler than expected. However, it makes the call sites
even more bloated.
Hmm, perhaps the
On 05/03/2013 10:24 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
Last year Florian fixed the compiler to detect overflow in array new
size calculations and pass (size_t)-1 in that case. But C++11 specifies
that in case of overflow the program throws std::bad_array_new_length
On 05/06/2013 05:46 AM, Florian Weimer wrote:
Nice, this is simpler than expected. However, it makes the call sites
even more bloated.
Hmm, perhaps the checking should be wrapped in an inline function, so
that the inliner can decide whether or not to expand it at the call site...
This
On 05/06/2013 02:39 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 05/06/2013 05:46 AM, Florian Weimer wrote:
Nice, this is simpler than expected. However, it makes the call sites
even more bloated.
Hmm, perhaps the checking should be wrapped in an inline function, so
that the inliner can decide whether or not
On 05/06/2013 08:46 AM, Florian Weimer wrote:
On 05/06/2013 02:39 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 05/06/2013 05:46 AM, Florian Weimer wrote:
Nice, this is simpler than expected. However, it makes the call sites
even more bloated.
Hmm, perhaps the checking should be wrapped in an inline
Last year Florian fixed the compiler to detect overflow in array new
size calculations and pass (size_t)-1 in that case. But C++11 specifies
that in case of overflow the program throws std::bad_array_new_length
(http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/cwg_defects.html#624), so
I've
