On 05/25/2018 03:55 PM, Marc Glisse wrote:
On Fri, 25 May 2018, Martin Sebor wrote:
Why couldn't nonzero_chars be constant in that case?
void f(const char*s){
s[0]='a';
// I know that strlen(s) is at least 1 here
}
I was responding specifically to your question about the strlen()
CSE.
On Fri, 25 May 2018, Martin Sebor wrote:
Why couldn't nonzero_chars be constant in that case?
void f(const char*s){
s[0]='a';
// I know that strlen(s) is at least 1 here
}
I was responding specifically to your question about the strlen()
CSE. Above there is no call to strlen(). What I
On 05/25/2018 12:06 AM, Marc Glisse wrote:
On Thu, 24 May 2018, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 05/24/2018 03:40 PM, Marc Glisse wrote:
On Wed, 23 May 2018, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 05/23/2018 08:57 AM, Jeff Law wrote:
On 05/10/2018 04:05 PM, Marc Glisse wrote:
On Thu, 10 May 2018, Martin Sebor
On Thu, 24 May 2018, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 05/24/2018 03:40 PM, Marc Glisse wrote:
On Wed, 23 May 2018, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 05/23/2018 08:57 AM, Jeff Law wrote:
On 05/10/2018 04:05 PM, Marc Glisse wrote:
On Thu, 10 May 2018, Martin Sebor wrote:
Can you please comment/respond to
On 05/24/2018 03:40 PM, Marc Glisse wrote:
On Wed, 23 May 2018, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 05/23/2018 08:57 AM, Jeff Law wrote:
On 05/10/2018 04:05 PM, Marc Glisse wrote:
On Thu, 10 May 2018, Martin Sebor wrote:
Can you please comment/respond to Jeff's question below and
confirm whether my
On Wed, 23 May 2018, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 05/23/2018 08:57 AM, Jeff Law wrote:
On 05/10/2018 04:05 PM, Marc Glisse wrote:
On Thu, 10 May 2018, Martin Sebor wrote:
Can you please comment/respond to Jeff's question below and
confirm whether my understanding of the restriction (below)
is
On 05/23/2018 01:28 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
> On 05/23/2018 08:57 AM, Jeff Law wrote:
>> On 05/10/2018 04:05 PM, Marc Glisse wrote:
>>> On Thu, 10 May 2018, Martin Sebor wrote:
>>>
Can you please comment/respond to Jeff's question below and
confirm whether my understanding of the
On 05/23/2018 08:57 AM, Jeff Law wrote:
On 05/10/2018 04:05 PM, Marc Glisse wrote:
On Thu, 10 May 2018, Martin Sebor wrote:
Can you please comment/respond to Jeff's question below and
confirm whether my understanding of the restriction (below)
is correct?
I don't remember it at all, I
On 05/10/2018 04:05 PM, Marc Glisse wrote:
> On Thu, 10 May 2018, Martin Sebor wrote:
>
>> Can you please comment/respond to Jeff's question below and
>> confirm whether my understanding of the restriction (below)
>> is correct?
>
> I don't remember it at all, I really should have expanded that
On Thu, 10 May 2018, Martin Sebor wrote:
Can you please comment/respond to Jeff's question below and
confirm whether my understanding of the restriction (below)
is correct?
I don't remember it at all, I really should have expanded that comment...
The documentation of nonzero_chars seems to
Hi Marc,
Can you please comment/respond to Jeff's question below and
confirm whether my understanding of the restriction (below)
is correct?
Thanks
Martin
On 04/30/2018 11:50 AM, Jeff Law wrote:
On 01/12/2018 02:30 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
A failure in a test for the recently enhanced
On 01/12/2018 02:30 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
> A failure in a test for the recently enhanced -Warray-bounds
> warning exposed an unnecessarily broad restriction in the strlen
> pass that prevents it from tracking the length of a member string
> of locally defined and initialized struct:
>
> void
Ping: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2018-01/msg01131.html
This was submitted in stage 3 but if fixing xfailed assertions
in tests by enhancing optimizations is out of scope for the
current stage let me know so I can schedule this change for
GCC 9.
On 01/12/2018 02:30 PM, Martin Sebor
13 matches
Mail list logo
