[Bug other/56955] New: documentation for attribute malloc contradicts itself

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56955 Bug #: 56955 Summary: documentation for attribute malloc contradicts itself Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: n

[Bug c/56956] New: ftrapv traps on valid abs-like code

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56956 Bug #: 56956 Summary: ftrapv traps on valid abs-like code Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.7.2 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Pri

[Bug other/56955] documentation for attribute malloc contradicts itself

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56955 --- Comment #2 from Dan Gohman 2013-04-14 19:47:42 UTC --- (In reply to comment #1) > I think it is talking about the memory returned by malloc/calloc will not > point > to another memory location while realloc can. I agree that's esse

[Bug c/56956] ftrapv traps on valid abs-like code

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56956 --- Comment #2 from Dan Gohman 2013-04-15 03:53:10 UTC --- (In reply to comment #1) > I think 'x' can not present negative value. The unary minus operator is defined for unsigned types. It doesn't produce signed overflow.

[Bug c/56956] ftrapv traps on valid abs-like code

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56956 --- Comment #3 from Dan Gohman 2013-04-15 03:54:32 UTC --- Pulling the unary minus out into a separate statement, like this: uint64_t y = -x; return x <= INT64_MAX ? x : -y; causes the program to execute correctly.

[Bug c/56956] ftrapv traps on valid abs-like code

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56956 --- Comment #5 from Dan Gohman 2013-04-15 05:12:30 UTC --- (In reply to comment #4) > (In reply to comment #2) > > (In reply to comment #1) > > > I think 'x' can not present negative value. > > > > The unary minus operator is defined for unsign

[Bug c/56956] ftrapv traps on valid abs-like code

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56956 --- Comment #6 from Dan Gohman 2013-04-15 05:14:27 UTC --- (In reply to comment #3) > Pulling the unary minus out into a separate statement, like this: > > uint64_t y = -x; > return x <= INT64_MAX ? x : -y; > > causes the program

[Bug other/56955] documentation for attribute malloc contradicts itself

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56955 --- Comment #4 from Dan Gohman 2013-04-15 14:53:06 UTC --- (In reply to comment #3) > Well, it _is_ actually about the content. There must be no way to compute > a valid pointer to another object from the contents of the pointed-to > mem