Andreas Bogk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The case is clear when an if branch is folded away, because some
> comparison is folded that would not have been under twos-complement
> semantics. This is a pattern that probably doesn't happen all that much
> in code out there, except in post-facto ove
On Mon, 2007-01-22 at 15:39 -0800, Mike Stump wrote:
> On Jan 21, 2007, at 11:48 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> > That doesn't sound right. It see flex being run every time I create a
> > new object directory, even though I don't modify the flex input files.
>
> Sounds like a bug. I did a quick c
Joe Buck wrote:
> You appear to mistakenly believe that wrapping around on overflow is a
> more secure option. It might be, but it usually is not. There are many
> CERT security flaws involving integer overflow; the fact that they are
> security bugs has nothing to do with the way gcc generates c
On Mon, Jan 22, 2007 at 06:48:16PM -0500, Andreas Bogk wrote:
> Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> > I just want to report that I have a working patch to generate warnings
> > every time gcc modifies code relying on the fact that signed overflow
> > is undefined, except for cases where signed loop indexes a
Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> I just want to report that I have a working patch to generate warnings
> every time gcc modifies code relying on the fact that signed overflow
> is undefined, except for cases where signed loop indexes are assumed
> to not wrap around. I plan to start submitting this patc
On Jan 21, 2007, at 11:48 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
That doesn't sound right. It see flex being run every time I create a
new object directory, even though I don't modify the flex input files.
Sounds like a bug. I did a quick check with a contrib/gcc_update --
touch and a c,treelang build
Thanks all for the discussion. I think we can conclude that it's not
safe to require a newer version of Flex. I withdraw my patch.
Cheers, Ben
Snapshot gcc-4.1-20070122 is now available on
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.1-20070122/
and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details.
This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 4.1 SVN branch
with the following options: svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/branches
Thomas Meyer schrieb:
Thomas Meyer schrieb:
Thomas Meyer schrieb:
Hello.
I try to build a cross compiler for this target: arm-uclinux-uclibc:
First the build fails because of a wrong config entry in config.gcc:
This should fix this:
diff --git a/gcc/config.gcc b/gcc/config.gcc
index 033cc3d
Thomas Meyer schrieb:
Thomas Meyer schrieb:
Hello.
I try to build a cross compiler for this target: arm-uclinux-uclibc:
First the build fails because of a wrong config entry in config.gcc:
This should fix this:
diff --git a/gcc/config.gcc b/gcc/config.gcc
index 033cc3d..378a92d 100644
--- a/
Thomas Meyer schrieb:
Hello.
I try to build a cross compiler for this target: arm-uclinux-uclibc:
First the build fails because of a wrong config entry in config.gcc:
This should fix this:
diff --git a/gcc/config.gcc b/gcc/config.gcc
index 033cc3d..378a92d 100644
--- a/gcc/config.gcc
+++ b/gc
On Mon, Jan 22, 2007 at 11:16:06AM -0800, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> The new -Wstrict-overflow
> warning will issue warnings for each case where gcc assumes that
> signed overflow is undefined.
>
> To be clear, this -Wstrict-overflow option generates a lot of false
> positives. That is becau
This is the beta release of binutils 2.17.50.0.10 for Linux, which is
based on binutils 2007 0122 in CVS on sourceware.org plus various
changes. It is purely for Linux.
Starting from the 2.17.50.0.4 release, the default output section LMA
(load memory address) has changed for allocatable sections
Hello.
I try to build a cross compiler for this target: arm-uclinux-uclibc:
First the build fails because of a wrong config entry in config.gcc:
This should fix this:
diff --git a/gcc/config.gcc b/gcc/config.gcc
index 033cc3d..378a92d 100644
--- a/gcc/config.gcc
+++ b/gcc/config.gcc
@@ -691,7
Andreas Bogk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> It is my fear that the existing behaviour of gcc when used without
> -fwrapv breaks a lot of code out there that was written with the
> implicit assumption that signed ints would overflow the way the
> underlying machine integers do. More importantly, so
On Mon, 22 Jan 2007, Ben Elliston wrote:
> I submitted a patch to gengtype-lex.l last week to gcc-patches. The
> patch uses some flex %option directives. Ian Taylor asked me to check
> if the patch passed through flex 2.5.4, which is the current minimum
> required version. It didn't work.
>
>
> "Ian" == Ian Lance Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Ben> I think it's worth raising the minimum required version from 2.5.4 to
Ben> 2.5.31.
Ian> I want to point out that Fedora Core 5 appears to still ship flex
Ian> 2.5.4. At least, that is what flex --version reports.
When this came up
typedef struct MyType
{
int field1;
int field2;
}
MyType *var;
Finally, I found a way to get the tree node for "var->field1" assuming
that we compile the code above. Here is an example:
tree var_decl = lookup_name(get_identifier("var"));
tree var_field1 = build_component_ref(build_indirect
Dear compiler hackers,
I feel compelled to revisit a topic that has already been extensively
discussed on this mailing list, unfortunately with an outcome that is
highly dangerous to the security of about any existing system compiled
with gcc in the world.
It is my fear that the existing behaviou
Wiadomość napisana w dniu 2007-01-22, o godz06:49, przez Ben Elliston:
I think it's worth raising the minimum required version from 2.5.4 to
2.5.31. The latter version was released in March, 2003, so it is
hardly
bleeding edge.
Your definition of bleeding edge doesn't fit mine:
$ flex --
write_barrier() is missing in the libgcj build. Fixed thusly.
Andrew.
2007-01-22 Andrew Haley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* sysdep/alpha/locks.h (write_barrier): New.
Index: locks.h
===
--- locks.h (revision 120859)
+++ loc
Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
[...]
> openSUSE 10.2 now comes with flex 2.5.33, but FreeBSD, for example, still
> is at flex 2.5.4. Just some additional data pointes...
FreeBSD has version 2.5.33 as textproc/flex port.
--
Vaclav Haisman
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
On Mon, 21 Jan 2007, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> That doesn't sound right. It see flex being run every time I create a
> new object directory, even though I don't modify the flex input files.
> We ship gengtype-lex.c with releases, so people building the compiler
> from releases shouldn't have to wo
23 matches
Mail list logo
