On 08/02/2016 12:34 AM, Thomas Schwinge wrote:
Hi!
On Wed, 6 Jul 2016 16:20:44 -0600, Martin Sebor wrote:
PR c++/60760 - arithmetic on null pointers should not be allowed in constant
expressions
PR c++/71091 - constexpr reference bound to a null pointer dereference
Hi!
On Wed, 6 Jul 2016 16:20:44 -0600, Martin Sebor wrote:
> PR c++/60760 - arithmetic on null pointers should not be allowed in constant
> expressions
> PR c++/71091 - constexpr reference bound to a null pointer dereference
>accepted
>
> [...]
> *
On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 2:15 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
> On 07/20/2016 07:52 AM, Jason Merrill wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Jul 18, 2016 at 6:15 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
>>>
>>> On 07/18/2016 11:51 AM, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 07/06/2016 06:20 PM, Martin
On 07/20/2016 07:52 AM, Jason Merrill wrote:
On Mon, Jul 18, 2016 at 6:15 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 07/18/2016 11:51 AM, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 07/06/2016 06:20 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
@@ -2911,6 +2923,14 @@ cxx_eval_indirect_ref (const constexpr_ctx
*ctx, tree t,
On Mon, Jul 18, 2016 at 6:15 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
> On 07/18/2016 11:51 AM, Jason Merrill wrote:
>>
>> On 07/06/2016 06:20 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
>>>
>>> @@ -2911,6 +2923,14 @@ cxx_eval_indirect_ref (const constexpr_ctx
>>> *ctx, tree t,
>>>if (*non_constant_p)
>>>
On 07/18/2016 11:51 AM, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 07/06/2016 06:20 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
@@ -2911,6 +2923,14 @@ cxx_eval_indirect_ref (const constexpr_ctx
*ctx, tree t,
if (*non_constant_p)
return t;
+ if (integer_zerop (op0))
+{
+ if (!ctx->quiet)
On 07/06/2016 06:20 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
@@ -2911,6 +2923,14 @@ cxx_eval_indirect_ref (const constexpr_ctx *ctx, tree t,
if (*non_constant_p)
return t;
+ if (integer_zerop (op0))
+ {
+ if (!ctx->quiet)
+ error ("dereferencing a
Ping. Jason, do you have any further comments or concerns with
the updated patch?
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-07/msg00280.html
Thanks
Martin
On 07/06/2016 04:20 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 06/23/2016 03:36 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 06/20/2016 10:17 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
+
On 06/23/2016 03:36 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 06/20/2016 10:17 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
+ && tree_int_cst_equal (lhs, null_pointer_node)
+ && !tree_int_cst_equal (rhs, integer_zero_node))
Not integer_zerop?
+"invalid conversion involving a null pointer");
...
+
On 06/20/2016 10:17 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
+ && tree_int_cst_equal (lhs, null_pointer_node)
+ && !tree_int_cst_equal (rhs, integer_zero_node))
Not integer_zerop?
+ "invalid conversion involving a null pointer");
...
+ "invalid
+ if (TREE_CODE (whole) == INDIRECT_REF
+ && integer_zerop (TREE_OPERAND (whole, 0))
+ && !ctx->quiet)
+error ("dereferencing a null pointer in %qE", orig_whole);
+ if (TREE_CODE (t) == INTEGER_CST
+ && TREE_CODE (TREE_TYPE (t)) == POINTER_TYPE
+ &&
On 06/01/2016 10:49 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 06/01/2016 01:20 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 06/01/2016 02:44 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
The new code in cxx_eval_component_reference diagnoses the following
problem that's not detected otherwise:
struct S { const S *s; };
constexpr S s = { 0
On 06/01/2016 01:20 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 06/01/2016 02:44 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
The new code in cxx_eval_component_reference diagnoses the following
problem that's not detected otherwise:
struct S { const S *s; };
constexpr S s = { 0 };
constexpr const void *p = >s;
Note
On 06/01/2016 02:44 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
The new code in cxx_eval_component_reference diagnoses the following
problem that's not detected otherwise:
struct S { const S *s; };
constexpr S s = { 0 };
constexpr const void *p = >s;
Note that this falls under core issue 1530, which has
The new code in cxx_eval_component_reference diagnoses the following
problem that's not detected otherwise:
struct S { const S *s; };
constexpr S s = { 0 };
constexpr const void *p = >s;
Note that this falls under core issue 1530, which has not been resolved.
I don't quite see the
On 05/31/2016 06:03 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 05/17/2016 01:44 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 05/12/2016 06:34 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
Attached is a resubmission of the patch for c++/60760 originally
submitted late in the 6.0 cycle along with a patch for c++/67376.
Since c++/60760 was not a
On 05/17/2016 01:44 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 05/12/2016 06:34 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
Attached is a resubmission of the patch for c++/60760 originally
submitted late in the 6.0 cycle along with a patch for c++/67376.
Since c++/60760 was not a regression, it was decided that it
would be safer
On 05/12/2016 06:34 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
Attached is a resubmission of the patch for c++/60760 originally
submitted late in the 6.0 cycle along with a patch for c++/67376.
Since c++/60760 was not a regression, it was decided that it
would be safer to defer the fix until after the 6.1.0
Attached is a resubmission of the patch for c++/60760 originally
submitted late in the 6.0 cycle along with a patch for c++/67376.
Since c++/60760 was not a regression, it was decided that it
would be safer to defer the fix until after the 6.1.0 release.
While retesting this patch I was happy to
19 matches
Mail list logo